Super Rugby 2017

sand_man said:
I thought you were going to ask how SARU have not fought and argued harder to retain the most successful modern day coach in SA rugby history. Still can't believe Ackermann is going overseas at the end of this season. Absolutely tragic for SA rugby!!

Lions were fcking BRILLIANT, period. To turn a 22-3 deficit into a 29-44 victory against a top NZ franchise is nothing short of miraculous!!! BRAVO!!!!
Click to expand...

Sir Sand_man, if I have had to respond as to why Ackers is leaving, I would be banned from mybb.
 
CHURCHILL said:
Sir Sand_man, if I have had to respond as to why Ackers is leaving, I would be banned from mybb.
Click to expand...

Respond!! :twisted:

Realistically there probably half a dozen reasons, politics, crime, money... More of an effort should have been made to retain him. Mind you, maybe a lot did go on behind the scenes, that we not privy to...

Anyway... We continue to hemorrhage valuable resources...
 
What if all the calls today as made Angus? I have the biggest respect for Angus, but again there will always be questionable by any ref. They are humans and a team will always get shafted in some respect and will lose momentum. A good team though manage to get above it.

Like I said the Sharks were shafted last week and guess what they will be again shafted again and again and again. It counts for any team. The Lions will also be shafted sometime.

It's what is called being human and not perfect.
 
DWPTA said:
What if all the calls today as made Angus? I have the biggest respect for Angus, but again there will always be questionable by any ref. They are humans and a team will always get shafted in some respect and will lose momentum. A good team though manage to get above it.

Like I said the Sharks were shafted last week and guess what they will be again shafted again and again and again. It counts for any team. The Lions will also be shafted sometime.

It's what is called being human and not perfect.
Click to expand...

Mistakes are made, but a game needs an unbiased perspective. This is the knockouts, there is no margin to have National Favouritism. Naas and Nick agreed that we need neutral decision-makers in these games and so should we all. This thread would have had +20-pages complaining already should this have been an Kiwi going against the Lions in New Zealand or even at home. The yellow card against Barrett is not even an 50/50 call, it is an interpretation that Barrett was cynical in play, a penalty would have been within the law, but a yellow? Last year the Crusaders made the call on SANZAAR to bring back neutrality,

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ral-referees-says-crusaders-coach-dave-hewett

"That's a really important thing," he said. "The problem that you have is when you get a referee from the city you're playing in, there's a massive crowd influence that comes in.

"They do affect it, it does happen. So neutral referees would take that out of any discussions post-match essentially," Hewett said.

Hewett said it was accepted among visiting teams that you had to allow a "margin for error" from home referees in South Africa.
"It's something that is frustrating from a coaching point of view and can have a massive influence on the game."
Click to expand...

It is true, but the margin today… it was wide. Jaco Peyper did not have a 'admirable' game today, maybe in the Lions perspective, and it was noticeable on how slow he was on making decisions in real-time.

Nonetheless, the Lions went through and that is where our pride should be, but to have an healthy competition we need to have neutrality. It is not about being human, it is to be Fair.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Mistakes are made, but a game needs an unbiased perspective. This is the knockouts, there is no margin to have National Favouritism. Naas and Nick agreed that we need neutral decision-makers in these games and so should we all. This thread would have had +20-pages complaining already should this have been an Kiwi going against the Lions in New Zealand or even at home. The yellow card against Barrett is not even an 50/50 call, it is an interpretation that Barrett was cynical in play, a penalty would have been within the law, but a yellow? Last year the Crusaders made the call on SANZAAR to bring back neutrality,

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ral-referees-says-crusaders-coach-dave-hewett



It is true, but the margin today… it was wide. Jaco Peyper did not have a 'admirable' game today, maybe in the Lions perspective, and it was noticeable on how slow he was on making decisions in real-time.

Nonetheless, the Lions went through and that is where our pride should be, but to have an healthy competition we need to have neutrality. It is not about being human, it is to be Fair.
Click to expand...
Don't give a toss on the neutrality, but do you really think that it stop the non sequential attacks on ref's if the ref is neutral?

Do you really think that supporters will say oh its fine, the ref was neutral. Must I remind you of the Boks v Australia in a certain RWC quarter game?

Please, I don't give a woot who is in charge of the final at the end of the day he will always get the blame, whether he deserves it or not. Probably the most ungrateful profession there is.
 
DWPTA said:
Don't give a toss on the neutrality, but do you really think that it stop the non sequential attacks on ref's if the ref is neutral?

Do you really think that supporters will say oh its fine, the ref was neutral. Must I remind you of the Boks v Australia in a certain RWC quarter game?

Please, I don't give a woot who is in charge of the final at the end of the day he will always get the blame, whether he deserves it or not. Probably the most ungrateful profession there is.
Click to expand...

I get it, you don’t support neutrality. Who attacked Peyper? It has nothing to do with the supporters, it is not the supporters playing on the pitch. The Lions would have won in any case seeing how the Hurricanes dropped out, but it does not excuse some calls made.
 
Yeah, man, I think neutral refs is an imperative but I honestly don't think Peyper had a bad game! I also thought it was a penalty and not a yellow but how many times this season have we said/thought, 'wow, soft yellow'. That's the game gents...
 
I think Peyper was unbiased. He was fair and blew the game as he saw it. Being fair is not quite the same thing as always being right. Everyone knows a human ref doesn't see 100%. That's life, and it's why a rugby ball isn't round (thank goodness). The Barrett yellow was tough but not wrong. My own impression is Barrett knew exactly what he was doing. He's not a doffie.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I get it, you don’t support neutrality. Who attacked Peyper? It has nothing to do with the supporters, it is not the supporters playing on the pitch. The Lions would have won in any case seeing how the Hurricanes dropped out, but it does not excuse some calls made.
Click to expand...
I see there is already memes going around.

Anyways I suspect neutral ref's will be brought back next year.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Another side of this is how BS the conferences are set up. The Lions didn't play one NZ team in the regular games, meaning they had by far the easiest run to the top of the log.

Compare their schedule to multiple NZ derbies for example.
Click to expand...

But they beat the Hurricanes. One could argue that the NZ teams were fortunate not to play the Lions because it made their run easier. I agree that the NZ side are among the strongest in Super rugby but the game between the Stormers and the Chiefs was a pretty close game which would mean that the gap wasn't that large.
 
sand_man said:
Yeah, man, I think neutral refs is an imperative but I honestly don't think Peyper had a bad game! I also thought it was a penalty and not a yellow but how many times this season have we said/thought, 'wow, soft yellow'. That's the game gents...
Click to expand...

Here is why I think that it had to be a yellow. It was a line break and close to the try line. Barrett interfered with the play. If that was deemed to be on purpose then we wouldn't be having the discussion about the yellow. People think that it shouldn't be a yellow because he didn't do it on purpose. In other words, because it was accidental. There was a pretty good chance that without the interference, there would have been a try to the Lions. You can't change the penalty based on that because players will start feigning innocence going forward. A person accidentally trips into the opposing player. Take a look at what is happening with the latest rulings on hits to the head. If you make contact with someone's head then the player is off the field (either red or yellow), regardless of whether it's accidental or on purpose.

Aside from that, if you look at the replay you can see that Barrett was looking at his legs when he pulled away so he had to have seen the ball.

Just to add. Barrett has gotten 2 yellow cards for similar things during the season. Line break, committing a professional foul. He sort of loses the benefit of the doubt when that's the case.
 
Last edited:
mbayshark said:
This...... happy for the Lions. But Peyphol ruined the Hurricanes momentum.
Click to expand...

People keep saying this but it's incorrect. The Lions already had the momentum at that point in the game. They had dominated for the previous 15 minutes, scoring 3 tries and been on attack the whole time. Yes, the Hurricanes had just scored a try but that was from a mistake by the Lions and the Hurricanes were already back on defense after the try. In other words, the Hurricanes try was just a blimp, not a change in momentum. If the Hurricanes had been all over the Lions after that try then we could say that it was a momentum switch but that wasn't the case.

Also, just to add. Great teams are great, not because of how they handle their successes, but rather how they handle the tough things that go against them. The Lions scored 2 tries against the Sharks when the Sharks had a man in the bin and they did the same against the Hurricanes this week. The Sharks, on the other hand, only scored 3 points when the Lions had a man in the bin last week. If the Hurricanes were a great side then they would have dug deep and held on while Barrett was off the field. They had their chances because the Lions kicked to them a couple of times. They didn't hold onto the ball and try and eat time for their player to get back on. They kicked the ball back to the Lions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X