All Blacks v Wallabies @ Eden Park

[shiznit]

I think the rule should be changed so penalties are changed to 2 points. Might encourage more running rugby. If I wanted to watch kicking I would watch AFL.

the problem with that is only australian & some NZ fans think that.

in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, South Africa, France, Argentina, Italy, Japan etc... they actually like the game as it is.

personally i have no problem with a game finishing without tries. a good tense battle by the packs at the set pieces and at the breakdown make for good tough football.

if i want to watch touch football with tackles i watch league.

the Elvs were crap... just plagued the game with aimless kicking and stupid quick taps. it didn't make the game any better.

 

[kia ora storm]

I question the inclusion of O'Connor in a match like this...he got found out and needs more time against the likes of Italy to get this confidence.

The Aussie backs lacked cohesion IMO.

 

[Garts]

the problem with that is only australian & some NZ fans think that.

in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, South Africa, France, Argentina, Italy, Japan etc... they actually like the game as it is.

personally i have no problem with a game finishing without tries. a good tense battle by the packs at the set pieces and at the breakdown make for good tough football.

if i want to watch touch football with tackles i watch league.

the Elvs were crap... just plagued the game with aimless kicking and stupid quick taps. it didn't make the game any better.

Some parts of the ELV's were sh!tty. I guess I just get frustruted watching penalty shot after penalty shot with very little attacking rugby. We all know how good a game of running rugby is. Just need to get the balance right.

 

[aussies1st]

Gutted we lost that one. We looked so good in attack early, but once Barnes bombed that try we seem to lose our way.

 

[African Monkey]

the Elvs were crap... just plagued the game with aimless kicking and stupid quick taps. it didn't make the game any better.

Yeah I agree with the aimless kicking. It was just horrible. I didn't mind the quick taps.

 

[Thomas]

If Barnes hadn't bombed that try it would have been 20-3 to the Aussies and who knows what would have happened there.

Too many mistakes from the likes of Burgess and O'Connor. I thought the ref had a mare of a game to be honest. Not sour grapes but he certainly favoured one team at the scrum. In one offence the contact was made and Woodcock didn't even bind. His arm went straight to the ground and the Aussies were penalised for bringing the scrum down intentionally.

How many teams with a scrum 10 metres out from the opposition line would intentionally bring the packs down? The Aussies wanted the ball in and out of the scrum. Consistancy would have been nice.

The Aussies were monstered in the second half at the breakdown and turned over plenty of pill. This is what lost us the game IMHO. If he had been able to hang onto it we might have forced a result. Great defence from both teams though. Some huuuuge tackles.

 

[Meth]

I question the inclusion of O'Connor in a match like this...he got found out and needs more time against the likes of Italy to get this confidence.

Agreed

Too soon for him vs the best teams. He looks like a superstar, but he is still only young and what they do with him now is very important for his development

 

[shiznit]

In one offence the contact was made and Woodcock didn't even bind. His arm went straight to the ground and the Aussies were penalised for bringing the scrum down intentionally.

that penalty was for binding too high. Props have to bind on the side or back of their opponents. the reason props are banned from binding on the upper arms of their opponents is because this makes it much easier to pull the scrum down, which is exactly what Baxter does when he and his front row don't win the hit. That way, they get to have another go at winning the engagement.

How many teams with a scrum 10 metres out from the opposition line would intentionally bring the packs down? The Aussies wanted the ball in and out of the scrum.

he got penalised for the bind. if he binded at a more acceptable area and the scrum collapsed they would have reset. if you bind on the upper arm and the ref spots it, as soon as the scrum goes down you will get stung.

Consistancy would have been nice.

and it is nice... its nice to see the refs clamping down on the australian front rows rubbish tactics to spoil NZ's strong scrum. what should happen is Baxter should get sin-binned until he learns to scrum correctly.

 

[Thomas]

The penalty I was referring to was the one where he was pinged for "bringing the scrum down" not "binding too high". The ref even did the "pulling down the scrum" signal. 10 metres out...on attack.

The Aussie commentators went a bit silly and the replay showed the front rows hit and Woodcock didn't even bind. Didn't even touch Baxtor. Just put his arm straight on the ground. Joubert was just guessing. Same with some of his calls in the rucks that went against both NZ and Australia.

 

[Te Kaha]

The penalty I was referring to was the one where he was pinged for "bringing the scrum down" not "binding too high". The ref even did the "pulling down the scrum" signal. 10 metres out...on attack.

The Aussie commentators went a bit silly and the replay showed the front rows hit and Woodcock didn't even bind. Didn't even touch Baxtor. Just put his arm straight on the ground. Joubert was just guessing. Same with some of his calls in the rucks that went against both NZ and Australia.

Thats all Baxter.. he drops his shoulder to try and angle in.. its almost impossible to bind correctly for an apposing prop... THATS what he kept getting pinged for... if he went in straight and kepy his shoulders up he would be legal.. but still get pummulled by better props.

 

[shiznit]

The penalty I was referring to was the one where he was pinged for "bringing the scrum down" not "binding too high". The ref even did the "pulling down the scrum" signal. 10 metres out...on attack.

did you even read the previous post??

yes he got pinged for pulling it down... but it was because he binded on the upper arm. if he binded correctly and it went down it would have been either a re-start or a penalty against woodcock.

if he binded on the upper arm and it stayed up... the ref would just let it go. but as soon as scrum goes down he will get pinged. no matter what happens... woodcock may even bring it down on purpose to milk the penalty because he knows baxter is binding incorrectly.

the penalty was for collapsing the scrum... but the reason the ref blamed baxter for the collapse was because of the bind.

you would think your idiot commentators would explain it to you guys..

 

[Parra]

did you even read the previous post??

yes he got pinged for pulling it down... but it was because he binded on the upper arm. if he binded correctly and it went down it would have been either a re-start or a penalty against woodcock.

if he binded on the upper arm and it stayed up... the ref would just let it go. but as soon as scrum goes down he will get pinged. no matter what happens... woodcock may even bring it down on purpose to milk the penalty because he knows baxter is binding incorrectly.

the penalty was for collapsing the scrum... but the reason the ref blamed baxter for the collapse was because of the bind.

you would think your idiot commentators would explain it to you guys..

Only Joubert and you saw him bind on the upper arm. Everyone else saw it correctly. Woodcock collapsed the scrum when the Aussies were in an attacking position from a set play.

It was a joke.

 

[shiznit]

Only Joubert and you saw him bind on the upper arm. Everyone else saw it correctly. Woodcock collapsed the scrum when the Aussies were in an attacking position from a set play.

It was a joke.

:lol: i think you'll find only the aussie commentary team and there puppet viewers who wouldn't know a tight-head from a pubic hair actually think baxter was innocent.

 

[kia ora storm]

Agreed

Too soon for him vs the best teams. He looks like a superstar, but he is still only young and what they do with him now is very important for his development

The AB's targeted him when he came on...he crumbled against Nonu and Smith simply because they pushed up on him.

 

[Thomas]

:lol: i think you'll find only the aussie commentary team and there puppet viewers who wouldn't know a tight-head from a pubic hair actually think baxter was innocent.

What's worse...a prop who binds in the wrong spot or a prop who doesn't bind at all?

 

[Thomas]

that penalty was for binding too high. Props have to bind on the side or back of their opponents. the reason props are banned from binding on the upper arms of their opponents is because this makes it much easier to pull the scrum down, which is exactly what Baxter does when he and his front row don't win the hit. That way, they get to have another go at winning the engagement.

Hmmm...are you sure, man?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25805528-5015652,00.html

Baxter found himself offside with South African referee Craig Joubert for illegal binding. As a result, the Wallabies were unable to use the scrum as an attacking platform.

"It certainly hurt momentum at certain times," Baxter said. "I guess as much as any penalty has a negative impact on the team's play."

Baxter said Joubert told him he was not binding high enough in the scrum.
"He (Joubert) was saying 'I need your bind higher on the opposition'," Baxter said.
"That's the communication I was getting. There was obviously a disconnect between what I thought I was doing and what was happening.
"He was saying my bind was in the wrong spot. It wasn't high enough on the body."

So what did he get penalised for? Not binding high enough? Doesn't look that way.

 

[shiznit]

LOL... i was just coming on to put my hand up and say i was wrong... my apologies boys.

i spoke to the old man today and told him the same thing... he advised me i was wrong... i had it the other way around... Tight-heads HAVE to bind to the upper arm. Loose-heads have to stay away from the upper arm. i thought it was the other way around.

my bad boys...

so in-light of that i have no idea what that penalty was for... so yeah i would agree that was harsh.

but... having said that.. i still stand by what i said about boring in... he does that alot.

 

[Parra]

Law 20(d) Binding by tight head props.
A tight head prop must bind on the opposing loose head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose head prop. The tight head prop must grip the loose head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back
or side. The tight head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition loose head prop. The tight head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_20_en.pdf




You can only guess at what was going on in Jouberts head.

 

[Thomas]

LOL... i was just coming on to put my hand up and say i was wrong... my apologies boys.

i spoke to the old man today and told him the same thing... he advised me i was wrong... i had it the other way around... Tight-heads HAVE to bind to the upper arm. Loose-heads have to stay away from the upper arm. i thought it was the other way around.

my bad boys...

so in-light of that i have no idea what that penalty was for... so yeah i would agree that was harsh.

but... having said that.. i still stand by what i said about boring in... he does that alot.

Nah you're all right mate, it's all good.

I actually think some refs have a preconceived idea about Baxter in their head before a game starts. Much like a bowler with a suspect action always gets looked at closely by the umpires. He certainly has a reputation but he's worked bloody hard to fix it (although he does lapse back into his old habits).

I think Joubert saw the scrum go down and thought "must be that bloody Baxter again".