UKC

Anything in Sir Clive's comments? Or just sour grapes?

I must say personally I find it amazing given the footage shown on Sky that Umaga and Meleanu weren't at least cited. If that's not dangerous foul play I'd find it difficult to imagine what is. And given Gareth Thomas' evidence in the Times to the effect that the touch judge was screaming at U&M that the ball had gone and to leave the player, how the citing official could not call the matter in is completely beyond me. Why make a decision like that yourself instead of letting a panel investigate?

I'd be interested though to hear the views of some actual rugby players - anyone?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: Im still yet too see detailed footage of the tackle, but would have to admit the players themselves would not say something like that if it were not the case.

On a similar vein... one player said regarding Grewcocks ban that the only time you'd find an oppositions finger in your mouth was if he was going for your eyes or trying to rip your mouth.???

In reply to Anonymous:
It was clearly a massively illegal tackle, both Umaga and the hooker should recieve lengthy bans. We are forgetting that they are NZ'ers though, that means that they can get away with everything.

Im pretty sure that they will appeal against the decision and they will get severe punishments

In reply to Carpe Diem:

I know what you mean - if I found someone's finger in my mouth during a rugby game I'd want it out quick and if my hands weren't free I guess there's only course to take.

Yes, you wouldn't pick O'Driscoll as a whinger.

jcm

In reply to Adam Rooke:

Not sure there's any scope for that, is there? I thought the agreed citing procedure for the tour was that if the citing official says no that's it? I'm sure the Lions will take it further if they can.

NZC, what does the NZ press say? Nothing, presumably.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:


There is a nasty smell about it isn't there. There were at least 3 penalty infringements and possibly 4 committed by those two at that ruck. Two of which would be regarded as dangerous play. We have a touch judge telling them to pack it in the ball has gone. Quite how the that lot can be dismissed so quickly without reference up the chain of command rather defies believe especially compared to the rapidity with which they managed to get Grewcock to the same place.

Then there is Umaga himself, feted in the past and given gongs for his good sportsmanship. In this case he hasn't even asked after the health of BOD. One might have thought if it were all a bit of the normal ruff and tumble then such a good sport might have said something to the effect "Sorry mate, nothing deliberate, we should have a beer when you can lift a glass again." But then again perhaps his spots have changed as he wasn't averse to a bit of tripping later in the game.

Wouldn't have made a jot of difference to the result but yet again it stinks.

In reply to Anonymous:

An equally good question is how does the citing officer decide that the ring finger is in the mouth "inadvertently"? I would have thought that rather more difficult than determining whether someone had been speared into the ground.

In reply to Horse:

You'd like to see what someone like Johnson, or indeed Macbride and the 1974(?) team, would have done about it. Instead of which, what do we get? Cited for biting, FFS! I'd like to think we'll see some revenge taken in the next Test, but judging by the pathetic lot we've got out there at the moment, they wouldn't know how. It's one thing beating up Stan Collymore outside a Mcdonalds, (and a public service, obviously) but this is different.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

Of course Macbride and his mates were under no illusions about the local justice and took matters into their own hands. I seem to recall the '71 Lions were not averse to a bit of their own rough justice after all it was Carwyn James who invented the term "Get your retaliation in first" after the carnage of the Auckland game.

I suspect the best we can hope for this time is that someone like Lewsey can legally do a better job than he did on Matt Rogers. Perhaps completely shatter a rib cage or two or maybe Thomas could do a Tindall on Gregan job only this time forget to turn him over completely and deal out a busted collar bone or something.

In reply to Anonymous: NZ press seem to be reporting it as a diversionary tactic by CW to move the attention away from his team's poor performance - read about it at www.stuff.co.nz. There's sympathy for BOD's injury and tour being over; there's doubt that Umaga would set out to hurt an opposing player in such a way, based on his fair play record....

In reply to Anonymous: What is without any doubt in my mind is that it was a deliberate act to target in the most hostile fashion the leading threat. This is what AB's always do as do Ozzie cricketers!!

SCW's only salvation now would be a certain Mr M Johnson!!

In reply to Dave Orsman:

Yes the NZ press would claim that in order to detract from another example of poor disciplinary proceedings in their neck of the woods. His fair play record is starting to look a bit tarnished though. Not even spoken to BOD and then tripped Lewsey later in the game. Tripping itself being a sending off offence.

In reply to Anonymous: With regards the tackle, while yes, it was highly dangerous, I don't actually believe it was malicious...if that makes sense.

I mean, while they intended to deal with him for being on the wrong side of the ruck, I do honestly believe it was extremely unfortunate both players went for him at the same time.

In the midweek game before, D'Arcy performed exactly the same tackle on one of their players, but very little is being mentioned about that particular incident.

In the England/Argentina game last night, the English s/h similarly did the exactsame...

The lifting of players is contentious because it can lead to serious injuries like this. If it does get outlawed though, we'd be deprived of such wonderful sights as Henson picking up Matthew Tait and walking him back 5 yds. I actually recall Brian Moores comentary concerning thar incident, it went along the lines of....'that tackle was even better because he resisted the temptation to spear him'.

The best answer is surely to get on with things now, and come Saturday, play with some pride. Get right in their faces from the off, intimidate them, and don't take a backward step. In short, whoever plays Saturday has to put their bodies on the line, and go out and win, not only for themselves, but for O'Driscoll.

In reply to Anonymous: Maybe the english and Welsh lads could ask them "show us your medals" before spearing one or two of them for good measure, then if and when cited at least they can show up the hypocrisy when judging AB's, better still win the bloody game!

However I doubt either will happen as they all look like puffs and lezzies.

In reply to Horse: Languishing here in the States, I didn't get to see the game, mores the pity. A question for you: was the tackle a "true" spear (player lifted in the air, turned, and driven by the tacklers into the ground on his head/neck, a la what happened to John Gallagher when he went to league in the UK), or was BOD lifted and then dropped? Whichever, it's a horrible injury. Speaking as PR person though, it "sounds" to me like CW has gone to a lot of trouble to maximise media attention to the tackle. And he's doing quite well at it.

In reply to earlsdonhammer:

Is anyone surprised by this?

I think I suggested this was a likely tactic a few months ago (but probably with Wilkinson as the target).

In reply to wcdave:

Yes, perfect sense. No point really in trying to guess whether it was malicious, though. Who knows? I don't see any reason to believe it wasn't particularly.

Tait had the ball, to be fair. In this case the ball was nowhere near. As to 'if it does get outlawed', spearing is already outlawed, surely? I don't even see that O'D was on the wrong side of the ruck particularly.

You're right about Saturday, of course. Although if we're going to lose, and we're going to get cited, at least let's it not be for some schoolgirl offence like biting.

jcm

In reply to wcdave:

My understanding from the Press here is that it was a penalizable offence not a sending off. He wasn't "speared" but they picked him up and he spun over ones shoulder - they dropped him.

Agree there should have been some approach from Tana. However the AB mgmt has been kept away from the Press as they feel it is a "spin" smokescreen to take away from how bad SCW did.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

More the latter, to be fair, although a lot of trouble was taken to make sure he dropped head first. This all taking place ten yards or more from the ball, with the touch judge (if Thomas is to be believed) yelling for them to stop.

Tend to agree about CW, but it's difficult, isn't it? If you lose and at the same time there is an incident of this kind which incenses you, it's hard not to be open to this accusation, unless you decide simply to say nothing.

But for the citing official to see nothing even worth citing just defies belief. I don't understand how someone could honestly reach that view in the light of the footage we've all seen and Thomas' evidence.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: There's been various comments from 'commentators' since Saturday suggesting that ANY kind of lifting in the tackle(regardless of how you view this incident)should be penalised John...that's what I meant.

In reply to Anonymous:

although a lot of trouble was taken to make sure he dropped head first.


NOT what was reported here. Not what Sean Fitzpatrick said.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Well, to be honest you'd expect the NZ press to take a pretty biased view. Glad to see I'm not the only one who can't spell the NZ hooker's name, mind, since stuff.co.nz has it at least two different ways.

You've seen it, right? You reckon that's not dangerous foul play? Seriously?

Have Thomas' comments that the touch judge was telling them to stop been reported over there?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: Seems like there's a been a fairly emotional response, and why not given the performance and the injury. I would imagine it would pay for the Lions to move on fairly quickly and channel their emotion into an improved performance in the next test.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

'lot of trouble taken' - come on, man. Have you seen it? I don't care what Sean Fitzpatrick said, although if you're talking about when he was on Sky, they didn't have the angle then they had later when Lynagh was talking. Of course he's an Aussie - don't know whose side that puts him on. Morris and Quinnell didn't see anything wrong on the first showing either, because you couldn't see what happened, for some reason the cameraman thought it appropriate to follow the ball!

jcm

In reply to Dave Orsman:

Difficult to be sure but I would have said probably and certainly BOD has said there was force being applied.

wcDave I don't think it stands comparison to the fine tackle on Tait that was in play and perfectly legal. BOD was lifted in ruck when the ball had gone. Two dangerous and illegal acts whether malicious or not they had intent, I can't see how one can do it accidentally but then I have trouble understanding how one puts a finger in a mouth inadvertently.

Whether the pair of them should have been sanctioned in some way is a separate question to my mind they should have been cited and a proper hearing held.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

Undoubtedly.

jcm

In reply to Dave Orsman:

No doubt about that. It would also be beneficial to the game if the problems of discipline in matches in New Zealand were sorted out once and for all. Just about the one thing that can be guaranteed of a tour down there will be this sort of controversy.

In reply to Horse: I know the two incidents are miles apart H, but in relation to what happened Saturday the whole 'lifting' issue has come under the spotlight.

Saturdays incident was dangerous, no argument. What happened though was no different to what happens in rugby matches week in week out, unfortunately two players 'cleared' him out at the same time.

Going all the way to when I was in school, one of the first things I was taught about rucks etc, by a certain Mr Cobner, was that if anybody is stood where they shouldn't be, pick up their leg and drive them over...same thing.

I don't believe they speared BOD at all. If you look closely at the video, Umaga actually drops him well before he hits the floor, and Mealamu is looking the other way, so may have had no idea that Umaga was doing the same thing.

It was just very unfortunate the way BOD landed.

In reply to Anonymous: And I clearly rememer a certain Andy Hadyn diving out of the lineout in Cardiff in 1978 in the last minute, thus winning a penalty, which was kicked, and NZ won 13-12.

Point being...NZ have ALWAYS used every trick in the book to win.

In reply to wcdave:

Tait got lifted cos he was a boy against a man

For me the issue is that it was dangerous and the ball had gone. Also the way it was dealt with. Had the one or both been cited and the commissioner on reflection saw fit to say it was a dumb and unfortunate thing to have happened, slap on the wrist don't do it again then maybe fair enough. As far as I can make out that didn't happen but it did to idiot Grewcock and has anyone seen the video evidence for that, I haven't.

In reply to Anonymous:
I haven't seen the full reverse angle but I saw the replays like everyone else on Saturday. I'm not convinced it was deliberate foul play. I think they were aggressive and the subsequent injury has given an intention to their actions that I don't think was there.

I don't believe Umaga is a dirty player - a hard non compromising AB.

SCW should leave it - it's over and he's covering tracks.

Re: Grewcock - I have had fingers in eyes (deliberately sometimes), up nose and in mouth several times -esp. in France. I have never resorted to biting. I have held on to those fingers for grim death many times, worked my way up the arm and belted the hell out of what was on the end of it - but never stooped to biting - it is in the same league as "bag snatching", eye gouging and shoeing people deliberately in the head - no place in the game, even amongst the hardest of forwards.

He is right to be banned and will know it.

In reply to Horse:
As far as I can make out that didn't happen but it did to idiot Grewcock and has anyone seen the video evidence for that, I haven't.

They wouldn't need video, the imprint of Grewcock's teeth on the ABs fingers would be quite sufficient.

In reply to Anonymous:
'Lynagh'. Of course he's an Aussie - don't know whose side that puts him on.

Neither really but I suspect his time over here would tilt him towards the Lions. You will rarely find Australian's supporting Kiwi sides at anything btw.

In reply to Anonymous:

Dear John

I am not a rugby player and did not see the game as I was away for the weekend, however, if it did occur, why did the other 14 not get their own back. That happened in South Africa with the Lions or are the current Lions just a bunch of nancyboys. McBride would not have whinged, but would have took action.

Norrie

In reply to Dean:

Agreed. His act in, possibly, saving Colin Charvis's life during the Wales/NZ match a few years back was an act of the highest sportsmanship.

Charvis had been knocked unconscious by the NZ No.8(can't think of his name), and while every one carried on playing, Umaga stopped, placed Charvis in the recovery position and made sure he was ok until the medics could get to him.

Uncompromising yes, dirty no.

In reply to Dave C:

I was rather more interested in it was determined said digit was in said gob "inadvertently".

In reply to wcdave:

Wasn't it Collins, not the one playing now but another one?

In reply to Horse: That;s the fella, cheers H. Dirty, cheating, Kiwi tw*t

In reply to Horse: It is of course quite possible that the aforementioned fingers were only in his mouth after he turned his head and bit them. My old man in Oz suggested this (he's a Lion's supporter on this occasion btw.) I got the impression that as a former member of the front row union he had experience in this department though I don't know if he was the biter or the bitee!

In reply to Dave C:

I can't quite square that with the official "indavertently put" verdict. What you describe would be more a case of Grewcock "grazing" I think he might have got a stiffer penalty for actually going looking for his dinner.

In reply to Horse: Agreed -the spearing or not is irrelevant since the lifting of the leg is deemed dangerous and a penalty decision.

In reply to Dean:

I was hoping you'd comment as one who knows. But surely 'deliberate' foul play isn't the point. If it's dangerous foul play intent doesn't matter, isn't that right?

And what do you make of what Thomas said about the touch judge?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: I've only seen a series of three stills, shocking, can't believe it wasn't cited. Each one take a leg, lifts him high, turn him and spike him.

terrible decision not to cite.

In reply to wcdave:

>I don't believe they speared BOD at all. If you look closely at the video, Umaga actually drops him well before he hits the floor, and Mealamu is looking the other way, so may have had no idea that Umaga was doing the same thing.

I think I'm probably not using the word 'spear' correctly. I took it that if you lift a player's legs above his head and then drop him, so that inevitably he's going to fall head first into the ground, that that was called 'spearing'. From comments on here it looks like I was wrong and 'spearing' involves actually deliberately driving the player head first into the ground (more like the John Gallagher tackle you mentioned). I agree with you this wasn't like that and they let him go before he hit the floor, but equally that was after he was already inverted. I thought that was also dangerous (as you do too, I note) and illegal (which I think we agree about?).

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

John you may like to apply your legal mind to the relevant laws and regualations of the game as available at www.irb.com. The relevant regulations appear to be 17.5 and 17.6. It seems clear to me as a layman, a citing can only occur if in the opinion of the citing officer it warranted the player(s) being ordered off. I guess the officer decided it didn't and at that point it ends the decision is final.

In reply to Anonymous: iirc, in league it's now illegal to tackle a man with your hands between his legs (or that could be another made-up law from that dickhead Stephenson on Sky) - which limits the opportunities for inverting a player. Not the case in union though, i suspect

In reply to andy: Don't think so in union, we were always taught to tackle high up, hitting the ball area with one shoulder, then lifting one leg with the other, dumping them back so they can't role over, and possibly ripping the ball. not through the legs but effectively dumping them backwards.

In reply to Iain Ridgway: i know some people will disagree, but its rugby, its not the mis tperfect game in the world this sort of thing does happen, we had 2 players get 2 broken collar bones in the same match, it just happens, sometimes you land at a odd angle and your bones just give in

In reply to mac_climb: to a point, it's a physical game, but the ball was gone, and he was picked up turned over and dropped, leaving this matter open means that players will seak revenge.

A broken collar bone from an impact in a tackle, or more often just rolling over, is part of the game, but off the ball, and I mean way off the ball impacts arent on.

In reply to Iain Ridgway: yeah i understand its for those people who think is so shocking if ppl get injuried, but yes the ball had gone years ago, and there was no need for it. i think disaplinery action should take place, as if you get younger players thinking its fine to do it you might find the sport getting very dirty

In reply to mac_climb:

One think I think that is now happening in the game is that around the ruck players are being "cleaned out" across the board often not in play.It is something I don't understand - as to why it is allowed but I suspect this is where this incident happened.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

You probably have a point, as does Dave about the general lifting issue. It needs to be sorted out by the administrators either in the rules themselves or by a clear guidance to the officials. As we saw on Saturday if it isn't someone is going to get seriously hurt.

Shane Williams, first touch and he scores in the corner.

In reply to wcdave: I don't understand this "he (umaga) isnt a dity player", most of us who have played contact sports have had those moments of red mist, OK there are players who snap and snarl as well as bite but there are those who will just lose it with the occcassion. Just because they do a nasty act doesnt mean they aren't capable of deeds like Umaga's with charvis.

In reply to Anonymous:
Christ mate, you really are sounding like the cliched whingeing pom.

Tough tackle, yes. Based on Umaga's history I find it very unlikely it was deliberate though. Unfortunate that the captain was taken out of the match I think everyone is agreement with.

It's time Sir Woodward was a better loser and got on preparing his team for the second match. There are a lot of All Blacks and Lions fans who were looking forward to a good competition - CW hasn't delivered the goods so far, the series is starting to look like a dissapointment. Better for everyone that he got on with the task.

Convenient for him I think to divert focus onto one tackle.

In reply to David Martin: Have you seen it? it takes a long time to lift, upend and drop, that doesnt happen by mistake, his past history shouldnt affect the call, maelamu (sp?) isn't a saint, wasnt he the other guy? have you seen the stills?

Virtually everyone I have spoken to here (wellington) has condemned the tackle.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
I watched the replays on the live coverage. A penalty offense in all likelyhood, and one that was missed by the ref.

Was it a sending-off offense? Very much doubt it, and as a result it wouldn't have warranted citing. It certainly didn't look like a deliberate spear-tackle at all.

Point is, what is to be gained by moaning about this one event? I get the impression this is being used to justify a poor performance and a pretty resounding loss.

English sport always seems to be looking for a scapegoat either vilifying anyone they can lay their hands on following a loss or claiming excessive glory from a victory. Get on with the bloody game.

In reply to David Martin:

Well said.

In reply to David Martin: Woodward is doing what he should be doing, shifting the emphasis onto NZ in the public arena. The spotlight will be on the AB's behavior in the next game.

While he is keeping the spotlight on the AB's and keeping it off the poor performance hopefully the coaches are getting the players mentally prepared behind the scenes.

In reply to Liathac: I would say he's trying to use the O'Driscoll incident to motivate his players; to get them angry. Good tactic IMO.

In reply to David Martin:

That is the crux of the matter and clearly the citing officer thought not, that is the end of the affair his decision is final.

I think what some of us have some difficulty with, and I would necesarily include the benighted ones in this, is that there was an awful lot of illegal stuff going on at that ruck/off the ball. The citing officer stoked the fires by reaching a conclusion on something quite complicated so damn quickly.

In reply to Liathac:

Well the B team seem to have done a good job this morning. How embarrassing to be in the Manawatu team - completely stuffed by the Lions seconds. Considering the ease of victory, I wonder how much SCW has learned about any of the B team players today.

In reply to Liathac:

He is also sticking up for his own blokes, generally a good thing.

In reply to tony:

Some of us keep telling him, Shane Williams.

In reply to Horse:

... but he's welsh, and he's on form... not in SCW policy sorry

In reply to Horse: Why did he take Robinson off at H/T though??? He can't seriously still have him ahead of Shane after that can he?? Ditto with Martyn Williams over Back.

Close behind Shane for MOTM was Simon Shaw I thought. He had a fantastic game. Second row is an area we seem to be devoid of talent, and I'd give him and Cockbain a shot on Sat. They're both aggresive, intimidating, players, and you know neither would take a step back. Just what we need this weekend.

Another good performance from Hodgson, and removing my one eye temporarily, he has been the best O/H this tour.

And Bulloch for hooker.

It's make or break Sat, and Woodward has to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. We have to attack these AB's, and take risks. Whether he's got the tactical ability to see that though I seriously doubt.

In reply to tony:

Yes and no.
Manawatu is a lowly middle of the table second division side - even before the tour started any provincial first division side should have racke dup 50 points. They are no names and it was a proud moment to say they played the Lions.

In reply to tony:
Tony,
Nothing would be too embarrassing for Manawatu. This is small rural area of New Zealand, biggest town has a population of 70,000, the remainder making up about 30,000....about the size of Glastonbury for 4 days of the year. In short totally hick!

Not much going on there to be honest, so having 60 foreigners visit in itself is a pretty major event in itself.

Manawatu as a side are one step up from high school rugby.

In reply to David Martin and nzCragrat:

In which case, I owe apologies to Manawatu - a visit from the Lions must have been a big thrill.

But it does rather beg the question as to why the Lions were playing there in the first place? Is this a traditional Lions match on NZ tours, and if so, is it always so one-sided?

In reply to tony:

I am not sure of Tour protocols as to who plays who.I think that there are some games that rotate through some teams - the Manawatu used to be a proud strong union but like many smaller towns has not been able to compete with the big centres (who attract all the players) and has been gradually declining. Well known players included Mark 'Cowboy' Shaw and Mark Donaldson.

In reply to wcdave:

Didn't see todays game. Maybe he wanted a look at Cueto for the bench if Williams doesn't play next doors cat better watch out. Look on the bright side maybe the other Williams was brought off so as not to be over exerted.

For some reason Shaw has often been overlooked but what the heck it is sh*t or bust now.

Did you see that elbows got delayed because he forgot his passport, plonker. One would have thought he could have picked one out the drawer or do you think he was spoilt for choice

In reply to tony:
Don't know exactly why they end up playing sides like this. It's good though that small teams get a chance to play against massive international teams like the Lions...good for rugby on the whole.

While these kinds of matches are nearly always walk-overs, they are good fun as their is some real spirit in the games. I like nothing more than seeing the smaller international sides sock it to the All Blacks every now and then when they get the chance.

In reply to Anonymous:
John - you are right - in the eyes of the law, intent doesn't matter. but, when it comes to the referee's interpretation I think you'll find it makes a huge difference. For me they were aggressive but didn't deserve sending off - no citing and tough on BOD but we have to get on with it.

Todays match - farcical and little use for selection. Exactly what the AB's wanted to give us between tests! Ha you've gotta love 'em - they choose the schedule to beat us as well.

Beating a side by 100 points gives us no clue who will perform on Saturday - I am a fan of Shaw by the way but it seems coaches have a mark against him for some reason. I would play him and O'Connell sat.

I watched the first half of last Saturday's match again last night - painful but useful. The ref. missed a lot of foul play at the breakdown, largely committed by the AB's. Hill got punched after the ball, Jack elbowed O'Connell after he came in from the wrong side - all fair game in that sort of game, but very noticeable that there wasn't any response from the Lions. We are lacking a leader and more importantly, an "enforcer" in the pack. Every good forward pack needs one we need to find one - O'Connell should be the man, but he looked dazed on Saturday.

Scrummage - we were outplayed there as well, but surprisngly White had a tough time. He was on his heels on the impact and the loose head gave him a tough time all night - we had lots of ball turned, whereas they were usually steady.

Byrne was to blame for for their try - the call is to the front but he throws before they are ready and to the middle - 2 errors in one! Also, White is dreaming next to Williams - he should have tackled him at the lineout.

Leon McDonald had a great game - kicked superbly, a couple of great entries to the line, always well positioned.

JW's kickoffs were not great, kicking from hand not brilliant, but his tackling was superb (except one missed between him and Jones). The experiment with him and Jones doesn't work for me - play one or the other.

The AB's were very aggressive at breakdown and always got that extra 1m which makes the difference.

Actually, apart from the amount of ball they got, the AB performance wasn't that great. Sure conditions were terrible and we killed two tries by professional fouls, but all is not lost I fear. I think we can put up a better display Saturday - I think it won't be enough, but I think it'll be much more of a game.

When are the teams announced?

In reply to Dean: NZ team already announced..Tony Woodcock, Keven Mealamu, Carl Hayman, Chris Jack, Ali Williams,
Jerry
Collins, Richie McCaw, Rodney So'oialo, Byron Kelleher, Dan Carter,
Sitiveni
Sivivatu, Aaron Mauger, Tana Umaga (Captain), Rico Gear, Mils Muliaina

Reserves:
Derren Witcombe, Greg Somerville, Jono Gibbes, Sione Lauaki, Justin
Marshall, Ma'a Nonu, Leon MacDonald
.

In reply to wcdave:
So they've dropped Marshall, Howlett and MacDonald. Have to agree with the first but second two seem a bit strange - what's the thinking? Any injuries?

In reply to Dean:

See this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4628895.stm

Interesting observations ref the last game, I've not watched it again but I did have the impression that The Lions were a bit supine.

I also couldn't understand what was going on with the scrum, New Zealand seemed to able to make a mess of our put in and wheel it at will. Clearly something was going on on White's side of the scrum I don't pretend to understand these things but I thought he was technically a good scrummager. How do they stop the wheel and other things that mess up your own ball?

In reply to Horse:

I watched the last game alongside a former Harlequins prop, and he said White was completely rooted in the scrum. He's a Sheridan fan - not sure I can repeat what he said about the fate Hayman suffered against Sheridan in one of the provincial games, but it's fair to say he thought Sheridan had the better of the exchanges.

A complete mystery to me of course the whole thing.

Dean - I thought you'd say that. Like most sports rugby has its own laws which aren't in the laws.

Enforcers - still think we're missing Back more than Johnson?!

jcm

In reply to Dean: No injuries, I think it's just a case of Henry saying they can play even better. He rates Muliaina as the best 15 in the world, and scanning the NZ sites, they all seem to prefer Gear over Howlett.

Do you think Woodward has the balls to redeem himself, and go for broke on Saturday? Surely he has to pick the team on form, as he said he would, for this one. No Robinson, Greenwood, Wilkinson, Kay, or Back please. If we're going to lose, then at least lets lose fighting, and having a go at them.

In reply to Anonymous:

I think the prop Sheridan was giving a hard time to was in the Moari game, I thought he was kept off so he couldn't be worked out. I thought he played on the other side to White.

Of course Sheridan went to the bin against the Moari for dobbing someone after being poked in the eye so at least he isn't going to take it lying down, as it were.

In reply to wcdave: OK, I haven't seen the video of the tackle, but I've seen some stills.

I think the only issue for the citing official was whether there was intent, I don't think this is evident from the photo's.

Yes BO'D was injured and it could have been life and career threatening but the scale of the injuries isn't an indictor of the intent of the two AB's.

As for bias, how many times have the 'whingeing fringe' posted here about dubious decisions going the way of the English and been told, basically, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Moving onto Grewcock, how many times has he been cited now?

As Dean (who has some standing in this field) says there's more approrpiate ways of dealing with a rogue finger and had grewcock punched the offender he might have considered himseld unlucky to be sinbinned.

In reply to sloper:

Haven't we agreed that dangerous foul play doesn't have to be deliberate before it can be a citing offence - in the laws if not always in action?

Whinging fringe posting about dubious decisions in favour of the English - never, I'd have thought, but hey, remind me, why not?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

That should motivate the Lions - Henry talks about having to develop the squad - thus, they are not playing their strongest side against us, or have an embarassment of choice.

Re: White - he is a technically good scrummager but had big trouble Saturday. Woodcock is amazingly tall for a loosehead and must be bloody strong. The Lions as a pack lost out on the hit - the moment of impact of the two front rows. The ref. was a bit laissez-faire in that regard - the AB's were going early a couple of times but it's an old trick and the Lions should be ready.
RE: the wheel - on your own ball it's up to the loosehead (Jenkins) to stand strong and firm, give the hooker a good view of the ball and also not to advance (or more likely be dragged) too far forwards - this tends to pivot the scrum round as their loosehead pushes as well. All basic stuff really and they should have had this sorted out weeks ago.

I really like Sheridan as a player - apparently in the weights room he is absolute monster and he also has the air of someone who takes no shite. He has suffered from not knowing his best position - he's played at prop, 2nd row and no.8 I believe. But, he has the qualities to be a world class prop - not sure if he is ready yet.

In reply to Dean:

Henry ids following stated olicy in a year with more tests than we have ever played to avoid player burnout. Rotation is what the Aussies do in cricket and that is what will happen here. The AB's have also said that the focus is on this and the end of year tour and will probably rotate a lot of players through the Tri-nations. I would expect that if we win the 2nd Test there will be more changes for the 3rd eG: playing Umaga at 2nd 5/8, Conrad Smith at centre (or Muliaina).Young James Ryan at lock.

Because we don't have touring teams really anymore you need to play players against the top international players in Tests as they won't get it playing for their provinces.
Australia play France this weekend and Sth Africa the next. That should be good.

In reply to nz Cragrat:
Yes it's interesting how tours have evolved. I remember playing against a 2nd row called Paul Ackford the week after he played in his first test for England vs. Australia in 1988. I think he had played against them 3 times - for London, England B, and England - he may also have played against them for Combined Sevices. I just missed playing against them for England Students. I learnt a lot from palying against him and bugging him for what it was like to play against the Aussies - knowledge filtered down in that way.
In those days, touring sides really "did" a country - were there for a couple of months and the excitement really built. These days they are like Japanese tourists - it's Tuesday, it must be Paris, it's Saturday, it must be London.

Like you say, you don't get experience playing for your province - but I guess Super 12 (soon to be 15) and the European Cup have somewhat replaced it.

If we lose Saturday, you can play whatever side you want for the 3rd Test- the Lions won't be interested.

I'd love to see the Lions win - it would make the 3rd Test a classic. I remember like yesterday the 3rd Test in 1993 - I had 2 of my best mates in the Lions pack - though of course the series should have been over by then! But that's a new thread .....

By the way, France are building a very, very good side. If they can find and stick with a good no.8 (Lievremont from Biarritz gets my vote) they have class players down the spine of the side. If they don't win Saturday, they may come close - they are going to be a tough side to beat in 2007 at home.

Are the Blacks peaking between World Cups again?

In reply to Dean: Howlett hasn't been on form for a while according to my cab driver I had the other day, it was thought he wouldn't be selected for the first test.

I think also they weren't to happy with the backs, thinking, probably rightly, it should have been over sooner.

Can't really argue with that can you?

Hopefully the BoD injury will force everyone to raise the aggression, I don't think you should need an excuse, but its a timely reminder that over here you have to win the fight, before you win the rugby.

The aggression that we had in some of the other lions tours seems missing.

Intresting over here there has been little or no talk of Deans bite, as though it wasn't that out of order, or maybe just not news, still it hasnt been mentioned. the main talking point, even today still is Umaga's tackle, supposedly DoB and him have left voicemails for each other.

In reply to Anonymous: Just found this on 'The Silver Fern'. Their ratings for the first test are highly amusing, especially their verdict on Martin Corry..http://www.rugbyweb.co.nz/content/view/152/2/

And their description of Back is class..'Best moment in the match when his bald nut had been rubbed in the blue paint, and he looked like Papa Smurf, only older...'

In reply to wcdave:

Do you think so? Dull, derivative and distinctly lacking in class, I would have said. In fact I must say I've read very little Kiwi commentary with any class: even David Kirk was being a bit of a dick. Sean Fitzpatrick was OK on Sky, mind.

jcm

In reply to wcdave: http://www.rugbyweb.co.nz/content/view/80/2/

bloody classic

In reply to sloper:

My, over there they REALLY hate that England have just won the world cup and they haven't since some time in the early part of the last millennium, don't they?

I must say I'm beginning to see why my rugby mate dislikes the New Zealanders so much. They've always been my second team, as it were, but I haven't been too impressed with them on this tour.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: now, now, John, that's some class banter

In reply to Anonymous:

Don't follow the link to the forums, it has a reading age of about 5.

In reply to Horse: Where are you watching the game saturday?

In reply to Horse:

From memory, that's flattering a lot of the Kiwis I used to know in Melbourne. Mind you, it's flattering to a lot of the Australians I knew in Melbourne as well!

In reply to sloper:

I do have a selection problem of my own, the neighbours have developed a metaphorical groin strain and are thus unavailable. I am seeking an alternative and am not that bothered about form, class, reputation or darts ability. Any suggestions?

In reply to Horse: pub in leamington apparently serves breakfast for you to choke on.

In reply to sloper:

Which one?
Are you going?
I am not anticipating requiring a breakfast to choke!

In reply to Horse: the butchers formerly hogshead, not sure yet

In reply to sloper & Horse: I had been planning to get Sky Sports added to my cable package for the test cricket but if there is demand I can ring and add it this week for Saturday's rugby.

In reply to Dave C:

That is very sporting of you, I chip in. Does your Boss do a good breakfast

PS What on earth was the matter with Hayden today, big girls blouse.

In reply to Horse:
I'll give NTL a ring tomorrow or Wednesday and get it done, as it means I can watch the 1-day final after the rugby as well. The boss will be out seeing her dress-making clients on Saturday so you'll have to put up with my tea & bacon sandwich making skills (which are not bad, even if I say so myself.)

Hayden was out of order today and I suspect he got a clip round the ear in the rooms for it the big jessie! Not like him at all which makes me think there's a bit of stress around the Oz rooms at the moment.

In reply to Dave C: that could be a plan, I will only contribute with food etc as I wouldn't piss on murdoch if he was on fire.

In reply to Dave C:


Cheers mate, Tom are you up for this?

Minor point, in this hemisphere as far as I am aware tomorrow is Wednesday. Tea sounds good.

In reply to sloper: Well it's only the same as going to the pub to watch it. I get it through the cable supplier for an extra few quid a month. Help with the breakfast menu will do fine.

In reply to Horse:


You'd think after 16 years living here I'd know that!

In reply to Horse: Oh yes, you have e-mail.

In reply to Dave C:

Obviously 16 completely wasted years. Can you mail me an address, post code or some such so as I can find you, preferrably one that isn't in Inverness as wcDave might have lost all interest in the tour by then.

In reply to Horse:

Damn beat me to it. Will do. Could the Barrister arrange for a decent sausage or two, please?

In reply to Horse: I've just sent you our address as well.

In reply to Horse: yes he could

In reply to sloper:

What a good chap he is, anyway bedtime now.

PS will you be wearing that scruffy green thing you call a shirt?

In reply to Anonymous:
Anyone forsee a return of the call 99 from the old SA tour

In reply to Graham T: definately that sort of approach needed, the only way we can win really, even the kiwi lads at football tonight reckoned that was our only chance, have we the personell to do that?

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
I don't see why not, but i can definately forsee that lewsey and others wil be putting in some massive tackles

In reply to Graham T:

Interestingly, spoke to my ex-prop mate just now and he said (and he says this is the view of all his ex-player mates, though obviously not Dean's):-

1. Clearly a deliberate off the ball act intended to cause injury, probably premeditated before the game.

2. Typical of the All Blacks and not a bit surprising they had the citing official on side either.

3. No longer cares who wins the series so long as there's a 15 man brawl and Umaga suffers a career-threatening injury.

Good balanced view there as you can see.

Incidentally, according to him Gareth Thomas is quoted in the Times as saying with enviable sportsmanship and diplomacy 'We lost on Saturday because they hated us a bit more than we hated them. We can't allow that to happen again.'. Is that really true?? Anyone see the Times?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:>
Anyone see the Times?
Have a look online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19489-1673218,00.html

In reply to Anonymous:

Found it - yes, that is what he said. Cracking!

Also some surprisingly rational quotes from the New Zealand Herald. Maybe they're not all as black as the on-line links posted make them look.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
I am inclined to agree with part of those comments,
don't agree that is was probably pre-meditated, and i do not think that umaga should get a career threatening injury, however i would like to see someone give him a bit of a friendly kicking, along with mealanu. Maybe a lewsey dump tackle or two

In reply to Anonymous: I really wouldn't want to be Umaga at the bottom of a ruck...
Not unless he's a LOT harder than he looks!

TTG

In reply to O Mighty Tim:
Yup whats the betting he has some interesting marks on him after the game

In reply to Anonymous:

Must say he sounds like a fine upstanding citizen, is it too late for him to get out there and play come saturday?

It is a great quote to go along side his one from earlier in the week about being around for "more than 80 seconds". Did you also see the bit about Henry being a bit ecconomical with truth about his claims in the post match press conference and watching the video. The whiff increases.

While it would be good to see Umaga and Mealamu get their dues it must not distract from the real purpose.

In reply to Horse:

I look forward to Thomas going over to apologise as Umaga gets carried off "Awfully sorry about that boyo "

In reply to Horse:

Saw this on the BBC site:
Credit to Woodward for making the necessary changes - now need to push on towards Saturday and build the intensity. I like what Gareth Thomas has been saying and doing since he was made new captain. It's great he will play 13 and face down Umaga. So here's a suggestion to really crank it up Saturday 8pm, Alfie to lead the Lions up to the haka a la Willie Anderson for Ireland v All Blacks in 89. One of the great moments..and now have team that can follow it though too.

Anyone know what happened that day?

In reply to Carpe Diem:

New Zealand won 23-6.

In reply to Horse:

Well that obviously worked then.... LOL

In reply to Carpe Diem: This happened CD..http://www.irishcorner.com/create_pcard.html?image_id=336

It was the first time I can remember anyone actually challenging the haka. Before that, most teams would just stand, watch, and shit themselves.

Unfortunately, NZ went on to stuff them that day.

In reply to wcdave:

exellent!!!

Thanks.

In reply to wcdave: Wille A. pretty much dragged his team into the haka, didn't he? Almost started a fracas with Shelford. I think he (WA) got quite a bit of respect for that, plus great to watch!

In reply to Postmanpat: Him AND Henson both...
THAT should be an interesting middleweight match anyway.

In reply to Anonymous:
Judging by the posts on here also it really is starting to look like sour grapes.

You lost. Get over it. Seems everyone is trying to find someone on the winning side to blame.

I never got any joy from watching the Lions being thrashed, nor from seeing a player stretchered off the field, and would rather have seen a much more even game of rugby. But the attitude I witnessed from the Lions fans in the pub I watched the game in, and seemingly on here is pretty lacking in any sportsmanship.

I guess if you can't win the game, win the fight though, eh?

In reply to David Martin:
Sour Grapes, no not really, just that a dangerous tackle off the ball went unpunished, you have got to be a Kiwi to be thinking lke that

In reply to Graham T:
Ahhh, of course.

In reply to David Martin:

Do keep up. Without exception, as far as can have seen, most Lions supporters have said their team were crap and that New Zealand deserved to win hands down. We know where the blame lies.

I wonder what the reaction in New Zealand would have been had Umaga been on the receiving end and case dismissed so hastily?

In reply to Horse: There'd have been a squeal in the press and the pubs for two days, then a reporter would have interviewed Meads, who'd say that today's players are a bunch of over-paid softies and how much fun it was to get smacked around by Willie-John (and vice versa) back in the day... and then we'd shut up and get over it

In reply to Dave Orsman:

lol you wish!

More likely, the NZ press would have gone to even higher levels of biased Lions-bashing (were such a thing to be possible), complain vociferously about 'the poorer side resorting to dirty tactics' and promise revenge for the next test.

:P

In reply to Alun: muttering dark thoughts re: cheating Lions for the next 10 years, of course...

In reply to Alun: Hearing Brits having a crack about the NZ press does make me start thinking something about pots, kettles and black somehow. At the end of the day, sports media will always have a 'tendency' (a little mild understatement there) to see things from their own sides point of view.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

If those two are to be believed they spent so much time biffing each other then making up over a pint I am surprised they found time for rugby.

In reply to DaveC at Work:

This maybe true. I feel our lot are somewhat off the pace in terms of one eyedness compared to some others one might mention.

In reply to Horse: In rugby terms I think you're probably right. A bit different in certain other sports I could name.

In reply to Horse: When men were men....

In reply to Anonymous: http://www.scrum.com/news/news_detail.asp?newsid=31953

You do wonder about Woodward's motivational skills sometimes. Telling JR he's only playing because Smith got a battering should do his confidence a pile of good!!

In reply to David Martin:

Okay, we’ve got your point. You think we’re upset because we lost. We think we’re upset because one of our players was injured in a challenge which everyone agrees was illegal, off the ball and dangerous. Let’s agree to differ about that, so you can put your nationalistic jibes on hold for a moment.

I’d be interested to hear what you think (or indeed nzcragrat) think about the following questions:-

You accept this challenge was penalizable (as even the NZ press do, apparently) and therefore presumably foul play?

You accept in a general sort of way that dropping people over your shoulder is dangerous?

You accept that the ball was ten yards away?

You accept that dangerous foul play will generally lead to a citing?

So why weren’t these two cited? The only answer I’ve seen so far is Dean’s, which is that dangerous foul play isn’t enough; there’s got to be intent. Intent to do what I don’t understand, but that’s probably because I’m a lawyer not a rugby player.

Finally, I see Umaga’s been quoted as saying he didn’t go over and see how O’Driscoll was as he was carried off because his first duty as captain is to his own players. That’s true, of course, but it’s difficult to imagine what needs his own players had at that time that they couldn’t have spared him for a moment to give O’D a pat on the shoulder. Wouldn’t you agree that Umaga would have shown a bit more class if he’d said, ‘Yeah, you’re right, that’s a fair point and I should have done that.’? I’d be pretty embarrassed if the captain of a team I supported behaved like that: anyone can overlook the proper courtesies in the heat of the moment but to give yourself three days to think about it and then come out with that doesn’t say a lot for the guy if you ask me.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

Oh and browsing bbc.co.uk I see Zinzan Brooke thought provincial side Manawatu 'would run the Lions very close' on Tuesday.

Let's hope he had a spread bet on the result, eh?

jcm

In reply to JCM: Another kiwi joining in....

I need to ask, what's being looked for by continuing this debate? An apology from Umaga?

It's probably not going to come, at least not publically (and why should it?). Given the reputations of BOD and TU, I imagine they'll (eventually) make their peace off the field.

A note from Martin Johnson's autobiography may provide a bit of context to these sorts of incidents in rugby: he justifies his many indiscretions (taking NZ player J Marshall out with a punch from behind in 97 comes to mind) in that rugby is a physical and sometimes violent game in which only the strong survive and that he gave as good as he got. Sometimes he got caught, sometimes he didn't. This may answer your question about "intent."

Do you think that the tackle was delivered with the same intent that Johnson punched out Marshall, for which MJ was suspended? People who seem to know about these things say there was no intention in the tackle to maim (and it’s not in Umaga’s character to do so) – therefore no citation. Apparently it deserved a penalty but was missed – and how many times does that happen in a game?

I agree with you that TU should have checked in with BOD on the field. But 80 seconds into a test, I'm sure his mind was on his team and keeping their focus and intensity primed.

In stirring up this media storm, CW has ensured that TU has more on his mind than leading his team. A clever tactic, I'd say. Will it help the Lions?

In reply to Dave Orsman:



I will agree that from what i have read a penalty should have been given against the AB's.

That was not a "spear tackle" as per rugby league. I have seen many worse in the Australian NFL.

I will not agree that this was in any way premeditated. If you believe that then you are a vctim of spin.

The Press: Before the Test the most scathing and vitriolic reports were from the UK Press. Most of us were amazed (including the NZ Press) with the UK press.

I think it would have been a good move to check in on BOD but he didn't.

I was in a pub watching the Test and no Lions supporters were obviously upset about much other than the pathetic Lions showing . All anger was directed at SCW. Everyone was really friendly, disappointed yes, but friendly. They did you proud. I am sure they were all better losers than we would have been.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

The International Rugby Board (IRB) has waded into the Brian O'Driscoll tackle debate, with chairman Syd Millar saying the sport is more dangerous now that teams are bending the law at cleanouts.

Millar said the injury suffered by Lions captain O'Driscoll when he was cleaned out at a ruck by All Blacks Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu in the first Test on Saturday has only served to highlight a serious problem.

"That tackle was made when the ball was gone and that's been happening," Millar said.

"It's not part of rugby to be taking people out off the ball. It's dangerous, the guy's not expecting, it shouldn't be part of rugby."

O'Driscoll was ruled out of the tour with a dislocated shoulder after falling awkwardly when the two All Blacks appeared to lift the Irishman off his feet away from the ball.

Millar said the issue was one he had been perusing long before the O'Driscoll incident.

He said teams were now training to take players out further off the ball than the law allowed but were getting away with it because of lax interpretation by referees.

"They (referees) make the point it's very difficult to watch that when they're watching the ball and the tackle," Millar said.

"We have to ensure that the referees apply the law. And if they need some help, then perhaps the touch judges may take a bigger part."

If the interpretation can't be tightened, Millar suggested a law change would be addressed but not until after the 2007 World Cup.

To the outrage of Lions management, neither Umaga nor Mealamu was cited.

Millar was happy to accept the ruling of independent match citing commissioner Willem Venter, although he wasn't sure if the South African had seen all the footage available .

"Whether he had access to as much film as was subsequently available, I don't know," Millar said.

"Sometimes a different camera angle can come up a few days later and it looked different. We must make sure that anything he has to help him should be available."

Meanwhile, Umaga broke his silence on the issue yesterday, denying that he failed to show remorse, as alleged by O'Driscoll and Lions coach Clive Woodward.

"I asked some of the Lions players [about O'Driscoll] after the game. I just don't try and do things through the media," Umaga told a news conference on Wednesday.

New Zealand newspapers reported that Umaga and O'Driscoll had tried to phone each other but, after getting no reply, had to leave messages.

Umaga added he wanted to speak to O'Driscoll in person to clear the air.
"I'm going to have a word to Brian myself, person to person," he said.

Umaga was reluctant to discuss the incident saying it had already been dealt with by the citing officials. He did add, though, he was upset the issue had dragged on for so long.

"It's too late for explanations. It's Wednesday and we've got two more days to prepare for a game," he said.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

I doubt very much it was premeditated but I don't think that is the same as it not having intent. I can't see how two people lifting a leg each and dumping someone over their shoulder is an accident. Foul and dangerous play and off the ball penalty and a possible sending off offence.

To me the issue is as much if not more about what happened after the game. There was no citing and as far as we can make out the decision was reached with undue haste. There is more than a sneaking feeling, perhaps particularly in English eyes, that the system down there has yet again been shown to be bent. That is something that does not do the game any favours at all.

Of course it is all grist to the mill for Sir Bonkers and he is never one to look a gift horse like this in the mouth.

As to Umaga himself he doesn't have to say anything in public although after 3 days he did come up with a rather lame excuse. I think he has, unfortunately, come out of this rather tarnished.

In reply to Anonymous:

It went to the citing commissioner - an independent non partisan person- Sth african? So you are saying he is "our" lackey and was biased against the Lions?

Nothing has been heard from him since he left - I thought he would have been hounded around Africa by the corps du press

In reply to Horse: "There is more than a sneaking feeling, perhaps particularly in English eyes, that the system down there has yet again been shown to be bent."

"Down there" as in Southern Hemisphere or NZ in particular?

Was the decision hasty? Aren't these things supposed to be sorted out quickly, so the teams can get on with their preparation? The citing official looked at all the angles, didn't see a problem, and made the call. It's especially silly for CW and the press to pursue the issue after the fact.

"shown to be bent" I guess most touring teams of anywhere/any sport feel like the odds are against them, even with impartial refs and match officials. You've got to expect a certain amount of frustration in that regard, whether as a fan or a player (and players are paid to suck it up).

Hope the next test in incident free and that the Lions get close.

In reply to nz Cragrat: Agreeing with you, mate (you're responding to JCM, I think).

In reply to Dave Orsman:

There do seem to be more of these sorts of problems in NZ, that may just be perception of course.

A certain amount maybe and I think in rugby it is accepted that interpretation of some things is inevitably different reflecting perhaps a different view of the game. Matters of foul and/or dangerous play should have as near a universal interpretation as is possible. Rightly or wrongly it is not percieved as such from here when a side goes to NZ. Events last weekend do nothing to change that perception.

I am rather hoping for a game packed with incident but doesn't require the display of the full collection of yellow cards, touch judges grassing, video evidence or the citing officer. Of course red to win.

In reply to Horse:
Oddly enough, that's something my old man implied regarding a few Bledisloe Cup/Tri-Nations matches in NZ as well. I did point out to him that there may have been one or two occasions when similar accusations could be made about playing in Australia.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

If you mean by me continuing it, then I'm just interested, I suppose. Plus a bit nettled by your loutish compatriot Mr Martin. I'm sure you're right that as far as the teams go it's a device; whatever the Blacks think they're not saying, and the same on the Lions' side.

There's no point in an apology, frankly. We've learned that Umaga and Mealamu are the kind of players who think dangerous play two-on-one off the ball against a player who's in a position where he can't fight back is OK; nothing's going to change that.

Not sure what your point is about Johnson. Johnson's reputation - here anyway - is of someone who'd retaliate hard if he saw something he didn't like. This wasn't retaliation. A punch isn't dangerous play - rugby players on the whole punch like girls anyway, ask any boxer. A spear tackle on the other hand can leave someone paralysed.

Intent - well I don't believe intention to maim's the issue; we're never going to know, are we? There was the intent there to lift a player up illegally off the ball and drop him on his head, isn't that enough?

I don't blame Umaga - much - for not doing anything on the field. Like I said, though, he ought to accept now that he should have done. Justin Marshall made the time to.

jcm

In reply to nz Cragrat:

I don't know if it was premeditated or not. But let me ask you this; suppose the All Blacks had decided to target O'Driscoll deliberately, how would you have expected events to pan out? And on what basis are you so sure it wasn't - just that Umaga's a nice guy? If so, why shouldn't it be you who's the victim of spin? I don't see that either of us actually has a lot to go on.

As we all know Sky didn't have decent footage of the incident until - what, half an hour after the game? Were they all so obviously not upset about it then, I wonder?

I haven't read these scathing and vitriolic reports in the UK press before the Test. Which ones did you have in mind? If you think those were bad, you should have read some of the ones since.

In reply to Anonymous:

Actually, as far as the citing thing goes I agree it's right that it should be dealt with quickly. As I understand a complaint had to be made within 12 hours - it's not clear that's a good idea in a night game, but there it is, it was agreed before the tour. And the quicker the citing official decides after that the better.

I wonder actually if there isn't a very simple explanation of the citing official's decision - is it like football, and a citing can only relate to an incident the officials didn't see? If so then the citing official was evidently right, since the touch judge (though not I suspect the referee) did see the incident and according to reports here (though I've not seen this) actually went on to the field to try and get Umaga and Mealamu to leave off.

I must say that is a feature I do find curious - if Thomas is right that the touch judge was shouting at them to stop, how on earth could he not have called the referee's attention to it and given a penalty at the very least?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:




I have serious doubts about Thomas' testimony for that very reason. If a touch judge had been paying that much attention to it he would have brought it to the ref's attention. I'm not saying that Thomas was lying per se, merely questioning his interpretation of events.

Christ you've been grumpy this last couple of weeks btw.

In reply to Anonymous:

I'm more surprised the discussion's gone on so long...
Anyway, in case you haven't seen it, here's an account of TU's "meet the press" moment early today (yesterday NZ time?) from stuff.co.nz


All Blacks captain Tana Umaga spoke to his injured Lions counterpart Brian O'Driscoll on the phone yesterday and hopes they can meet before the tour ends.

Umaga spoke publicly for the first time yesterday to a packed media conference in Wellington about the incident in last Saturday's first test in Christchurch when O'Driscoll suffered a dislocated shoulder. The injury was an accident and the reaction was disappointing, Umaga said.

There had been calls for Umaga to apologise to O'Driscoll. Lions coach Sir Clive Woodward claimed yesterday that the two captains had

yet to make contact. However, they exchanged telephone messages earlier in the week and spoke on the phone yesterday. Umaga said he hoped they would meet before the Lions leave New Zealand.

Meanwhile, Lions spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who was formerly chief adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has come under fire from two British MPs.

Hugh Robertson, the Tory sports spokesman, and Derek Wyatt, a member of the select committee for culture, media and sport, are not impressed with Campbell's role in the Lions' continued public thumping of the Umaga-O'Driscoll saga.

Mr Robertson said Campbell had become "more trouble" than he's worth to Woodward and the Lions.

"You need a sophisticated communications specialist, but not a controversial political figure who has made his name in the black arts of politics," Mr Robertson said. "It has reached the silly stage and sounds very unreasonable. He is employing the techniques learnt at No 10, where he came unstuck at the end."

Mr Wyatt suggested Campbell was blackening the name of British sportsmanship by encouraging the Lions to continue their attack on Umaga's character. "My own feeling is that you should do it on the pitch and if you don't do it on the pitch then don't moan."

In reply to Anonymous: Marshall went over and gave BoD a pat, nice touch, small gesture, but it just shows class, Umaga hasnt acted well after teh incident in my opinion, in the press interviews he seems angry at BoD for making it an issue.

In reply to Anonymous:

There were a couple of amusing moments in my conversation with my friend. When he said he'd love Umaga to be injured I demurred a little.

'Come on, you don't really want to see Umaga carried off, do you?', I said.

'Perhaps you're right.', he said (pause).

'Maybe that is a bit much to hope for.' (longer pause).

'But Mealamu now, he's a hooker. You can do more with a hooker.'

Then he went on to recite a long list of past AB transgressions, which included Sandy Carmichael having his cheekbone broken by a punch in 1971 in a provincial game before the first Test. I was keen to show my knowledge of rugby history at this point.

'Yeah', I said. 'And didn't we lose both props on that tour?'.

'Yes, John.', he said. 'But Roy McLoughlin broke his thumb punching one of them. I don't think you can blame them for that.'


Anyway, re the first Test, I must say the Blacks' handling was awesome. This particular incident was cowardly thuggery as far as I could see, though, and as I said above has really quite put me off the ABs, whom I've always previously rather admired.

jcm

In reply to Dave C:

I resent that. I'm always grumpy.

jcm

In reply to Dave Orsman:

They're just rent-a-quote Tories who hate Campbell and lose no opportunity to traduce him in the press because they think it will bring them political advantage.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

The regualations are quite clear, see 17.6.2 para b). A citing officer can cite someone for illegal/foul play that warranted sending off even if the officials have taken action against the player(s) concerned. The exception to this being if they have been ordered off presumably because they are then in for a wigging anyway.

However, I can imagine that there would be reluctance to take action if the ref had already applied a sanction. I say this because in the murky depths of the regs there is some powerful stuff about not undermining the refs authority. I don't think the same applies to the touch judges.

As far as I can make out the citing officer decides if there is a case to answer. If there is then it gets referred to the Judical Officer or Disciplinary Committee who hear the case and dish out the sentence.

In reply to Horse:

OK, fair enough, there goes that theory. Meant to say thanks earlier for the link to the rules, by the way - my machine can't open them properly, otherwise naturally I'd have been poring over them line by line like a good lawyer should.

Interesting link to some NZ opinion:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=466&ObjectID=10332995

Evidently they aren't all as one-eyed as the chatroomers; in fact there are other reports on that site by NZ reporters saying that Umaga and Mealamu should have been cited, "no question". They also say (see Dave C) that the touch judge can be seen on the video trying to intervene. That touch judge by the way is Saturday's ref....

They also the citing official was a South African and the NZ and SA rugby lot notoriously hate each other, which is probably a fair point.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
otherwise naturally I'd have been poring over them line by line like a good lawyer should.

I'm sure Horse would say Sloper should do that as well.

They also say (see Dave C) that the touch judge can be seen on the video trying to intervene. That touch judge by the way is Saturday's ref....

If that's right, I'll happily withdraw my previous comment. Hopefully they'll show it on Saturday morning (and Horse can spend the rest of the day giving me grief about it aw well then.)

In reply to nz Cragrat:

I suspect if anthing is bent in the southern hemisphere right now it is Alistair Campbell acting as the press officer for the Lions. No wonder this incident is being made such an issue.

Eactly who is being taken for a ride here?!

In reply to David Martin:

Follow the link I've posted and read what the NZ journalists say. There's at least three articles on that page which say they should clearly have been cited, and none saying different (plenty quoting Saint Tana as saying different, obviously), though I can't open an interview with Sean Fitzpatrick.

I agree though it doesn't seem particularly likely Venter was actually bent, incredible though his decision was.

Anyone know whether his decision's on line anywhere, or in the public domain at all? Does he give any reasons?

Notice you couldn't be bothered to answer my questions by the way. Ironic how the Kiwi way of deflecting questions about this is to complain that it's all a way of deflecting questions about the Lions. OK. You won. Wou were brilliant. We were terrible. Now how come your captain got away with dangerous and illegal play?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
Sorry, missed your question and really can't be bothered with it. This situation is become laughable...

You really do seem to think this is some kiwi conspiracy against northern hemisphere rugby, that this one event is in some way endemic in NZ rugby, a nation of cheats that have finally been found out, and that this merely shows the "true evil" that Tana Umaga has harboured all along.

From what I've read opinion is pretty much split on whether or not the tackle was dangerous. Face it, it's a marginal decision. There's plenty of the that in rugby. A South African (more Kiwi bias?) official decided not to cite. Now get over it.

One incident from Tana Umaga seems to make you think he is the embodyment of a bad sportsman. That couldn't be further off the mark. It's this kind of hype that could well lead to some very ugly incidents in the next match and threatens to derail the entire tour.

Under any other circumstances I doubt this issue would have received any more airtime after a couple of days. Instead you have CW openly claiming the officials are bent, constant nagging in the press, down to the most pathetic detail - Tana hadn't gone to visit O'Driscoll in hospital soon enough. Come on!

Sorry, you and this whole issue are being "spun" here. The constant moaning about what happened (a marginal decision) is threatening to bring the game into more dissrepute than the actual tackle. There are much bigger issues at stake and that warrant jouranlists time.

Alistair Campbell's style is shining through this whole issue as bright as day...but I guess this is just my "kiwi way" of deflecting questions.

In reply to David Martin: I dont get this bad spotsman/good sportsman stuff, how many of us in 15 years of competitive sports have gone into a challenge that red mist has come over us, and bang! we have all (well most done it), some one tugs your shirt and you crack them with an elbow, just instinctive, things happen in games, I'm not justifying it, just dont think you can type sportsman as good or bad, we all have it in us to react inappropriately..

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Here is an audio of radio interview with Fitzpatrick

http://xtramsn.co.nz/rugby/0,,12450-4512791-25,00.html

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Hayman has had to withdraw due to an infected toe - that should bring a smile to your front row eyes...

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

I have been reluctant to get into this debate partially because I think it's going on too long, and partially because I haven't seen a replay til yesterday but:


There is a distinct difference between and angry lash out with a fist or elbow, and two separate players lifting a leg each and upturning another player. If O-Driscoll was carrying the ball at the time you could have got away with calling it a tackle but was 10 feet away from the ball!!!

What many in Britain are aggrieved about is not that it has gone unpunished per se, it's because one person took a relatively quick decision that there 'was no case to answer'. Perhaps a more satisfactory response (for all concerned) would have been to refer it to a tribunal - then a team of people could have looked at the incident and all the evidence, and come to a considered decision.

If this had happened everyone would have been better off - it may have taken longer to reach a decision but, once reached, the Lions would have had to accept it and the all-blacks wouldn't have had to put up with us whining all week!

In reply to Alun: I know, but I'm just saying that there is no such thing as a "type", players, like people react unexpectedly, more so even as they play on the limit of their emotions.

It would be interesting to ask how many players regret an action in their careers, Dean?

I think you hit the nail on the head with the rest though.

Cheers

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Are you sure there is no such thing as a type of player, but perhaps this is not the place to debate Mr Keane again Aside from that I think you're right as is Alun.

Of course the suggestion higher up that this is a "one off" event is laughable but at least shows there is a sense of humour there somewhere either that or a bout of amnesia.

In reply to Horse: I was going to mention keane but thought I'd try to leave any mention of united off the thread. But maybe there are players who are naturally, not the greatest sportsman out there, but even them have moments of doing good on the pitch, just more red mist.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

I admire your restraint.

Actually a bit of his "attitude" wouldn't have gone a miss last weekend.

In reply to David Martin:

Oh, do grow up, honestly. I started this thread in the hope someone would have something interesting to say about the rules and ethos of the game to explain something to me which seemed incomprehensible. You obviously haven’t got a clue about either and can’t be bothered to discuss it anyway, so it’s a shame you bothered to post really.

I don’t know about Kiwi conspiracy – hometown bias by the officials, certainly, but you get that anywhere.

I do suspect the episode illustrates a genuine gap between north and south hemisphere attitudes. The Blacks, and many of their more graceless supporters – you, for example - are giving the clear impression that their attitude is: you put an opposition player out of the tour; that’s good. If it was illegal, that doesn’t matter; if it threatens his career, so what? Of course one of the points of rugby is the infliction of pain and I’ve got no illusions about the tears that would be shed in some quarters here if the same happened to Umaga, certainly after this. But I think you’d see more expressions of regret, conventional possibly. I certainly think in similar circumstances O’Driscoll would have made more effort to go over at the time and that his fury about that is probably genuine. I find that kind of cultural distinction interesting.

It’s always interesting what sportsmen say in these kind of circumstances. Umaga was honest enough, to be sure, in saying in effect that he didn’t care. I have the impression that’s quite a New Zealand thing: it’s how they portray themselves as hard. Over here I think you might have got a player, equally honestly (honesty has little meaning when it comes to spin, which of course is what both sides are doing) saying ‘It was the first hit; obviously you’re psyched up and want to make an impression, maybe I went a bit too far and it could have been a penalty, I never meant to injure the guy and if he’s badly hurt I’m really sorry about that.’ We wouldn’t consider that made the speaker any less hard – over there I have the impression they feel such a remark would be unmanly somehow.

I haven’t seen much split opinion. Dean’s about the only informed commentator I’ve seen who thinks U & M shouldn’t have been cited, and as I’ve said the NZ reports I’ve read say they should have been, ‘no question’. The only commentator I’ve seen not from either NZ or here was Michael Lynagh, who was in no doubt at all that a lengthy ban was appropriate. Martin Bayfield's column on bbc.co.uk says 'the majority of Kiwi supporters I've spoken so know that Umaga and Mealamu did something wrong. It wasn't intentional, but it was reckless.'. Having said that, I can’t hear Sean Fitzpatrick without downloading something or other which my machine tells me would take 30 minutes, so if anyone has listened to that I’d be very interested to hear what he says.

I do wonder whether it’s one of those things where the unwritten rules are different in northern and southern hemispheres: over here there’s been talk about lifting for some time and this would be controversial enough even it had been one-on-one with the ball somewhere near. But maybe it’s different there: obviously all rugby is dangerous and what’s going to be deemed too dangerous to be allowed is a value call which will differ in different places. It’d be more interesting to talk about that than listen to cheap jibes about whinging, but it’s up to you, of course.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous: What do you think of D'Arcy being spoken to for a 'spear tackle'?

In reply to sloper:

Haven't seen it. Do you mean: do I think he should be, or what I do think of the fact that he has been (has he?)?

Anyway, from what I understand the guy was running with ball, so that was a single movement rather than the sort of up-and-over manouevre lasting two or three seconds which U & M went in for. But like I say I haven't seen it.

jcm

In reply to sloper: The one no-one made an issue of??

In reply to Anonymous:

I haven't seen it either but from the reports he was "admonished" by the ref.

In reply to wcdave: That would be the one. We can all take a different view as to how the ref / citing official should view the incident but all this talk of bais is begining to look rather juvenile.

In reply to sloper:

Well in that case, if D’Arcy did it, I don’t hold with it. I find it interesting that the locals didn’t cite him, which might be for two reasons, first it might indeed be that the whole thing isn’t seen as so dangerous there, second and more likely it’s the usual scenario: drive at 40 mph down a residential street, worst that’ll happen is three very unlikely points on your licence; drive at 40 mph down a residential street and a child chooses that moment to run out, you’re branded a near-murderer in the papers and sentenced to five years in prison. Umaga did something pretty similar to Lewsey later on: no-one says anything because Lewsey was fortunate enough to walk away. Same with D’Arcy. People talk more about dangerous acts that do in fact cause injury than ones which might have done; there’s no logic to it, but there it is.

Remember what Moore said about Henson – the good thing about that tackle was he didn’t spear him. It can be avoided. If D’Arcy didn’t, that’s bad and I don’t defend it. What I find interesting, as I say, is how the NZers are leaping to defend the indefensible.

Bias – perhaps that wasn’t the mot juste; it tends to imply a pattern, whereas this was one decision. But if you think Mr Venter would have made the same call in Ireland I can only congratulate you on your faith. I’ve been watching sport a long time and in my experience it doesn’t work like that, but if you think different, keep on truckin’.

I’d be more interested in hearing what other people think of the decision and why rather than being abused as juvenile and the rest, call me sensitive but I just don’t find that as interesting.

jcm

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Iain - I see what you are getting at, but it's like life in general - someone is most of the time a good sportsman or a bad one - and generally the vast majority are in the middle.

I honestly believe Tana Umaga is not a thug - I believe he plays very hard and sometimes transgresses the law, but inherently does not aim to harm or maim other players. I really do not subscribe to a pre-meditated action - top class rugby players have a hell of a lot on their minds pre-match, and any idea to target a certain player would subtract from performance in other areas. For example, how would they know they would get BOD in a ruck at all? What players - where they all instructed to bust his shoulder?

No, for me - it was an action of over robust play that should have been penalised. For me, it wasn't a yellow card offence.

I think they could have been cited - but then they would have been cleared because it wasn't a sending off offence.

Talking about regretting actions in ones careers - I have to say there are none I regret. There were many times I did things I shouldn't (you can imagine) - but they were all part of the game. There were equally many times things were done to me that shouldn't have been done, but I did (and do) accept this is part and parcel of sport.

One of the few things I regret in life occurred in rugby - and it was totally legal. Trial match 1st yr uni - I played no.6 and the opposition no.10 dummied twice in succession and made right fools of us back rowers. I had a word and told him if he did it again there would be consequences 'cos I wanted to make the team - he'd made his point. Well, he did it again, I tackled him just as he side stepped and he broke his leg in 7 places. I had his compound fracture poking me in the face for some horrible seconds before everyone got off. Poor bloke didn't walk for a long time and never played again at uni. Totally legal but I still regret it happened - but that's sport (and life).

The BOD thing is over. The Kiwis will be loving it that we are still whingeing about it - it's taking energy from our effort on saturday. And SCW is covering tracks already ....

What's the weather forecast for Sat in NZ?

In reply to Anonymous: Looking at the wider picture, the simple fact is New Zealand do, and always have done, play a far more physical game than anyone else.

They can be brutal, and have been on many occasions, and often play very close to the line of acceptability as to what's legitamate and what isn't.

The obvious example is their rucking technique, which has always been contentious to a degree. In short, if you're on the wrong side, or on the deck, they'll get you out of the way...and you'll know about it.

I see nothing wrong with it. If the Lions had shown even a tenth of the aggression shown by NZ last week, it'd improved the performance no end.

One of the most telling incidents of last week match was the sight of Chris Jack, on the wrong side of the ruck, getting a good shoeing by two or three Lions. With his shirt hanging off his back, Jack got up, looked at the Lions forwards, and just laughed...as if to say 'is that all you've got boys',

In reply to Anonymous:

For starters I'm glad you acknowledge that bias can swing both ways. As for hometown bias: South Africa and New Zealand are of course separated by quite a stetch of water.

If you are going to be claiming any bias from me, I'll have you know in any match against the All Blacks I will always throw in my vocal support for losing opposition (SA, Aus and England being particular exceptions). Always one to get in behind Wales, Ireland and Scotland so your perception that this is just another one-eyed Kiwi, geneticly engineered by southern bias to oppose the Lions is a bit rich.


Absolute crap. I have said from the start I gain no satisfaction from O'Driscoll being taken out (and little from seeing the Lions lose in the way they did) and in my opinion it is a tragedy: it lessens the effectiveness of the Lions team, gives less impressive games, and most of all, a very respected player is injured and plays no further role in the matches....not to mention the even louder whining once the engines have stopped.

I have seen NOTHING to give the slightest hint that ANYONE takes any joy from seeing O'Driscoll injured....this is really just another example of your own rather skewed view on southern hemisphere rugby (and culture in general). On the contrary, reading variously around it seems some will be taking immense joy from seeing Tana Umaga intentionally taken out in the next match. Charming.


Very interesting sociological examination of NZ culture. You really are trying to paint this as some divide between countries, that this one incident is illustrative of a culture as a whole and something quite above what the (finger chewing) Lions would be capable of. I'd be interested in where you think this gentlemanly divide lies: is it Southern Hemisphere rugby? Perhaps just from teams that happen to beat the Lions? Any team other than those from the UK? Or from players hailing from the pacific Islands?

The media circus is starting to take a more personal tone, with the undesireable result that it now appears to be smearing Tana Umaga. Is the lack of an immediate apology that important? Or is unsettling the AB side and winning the next game worth this? The very fact that the focus has shifted to Tana Umaga's lack of an apology is indicative of just how far this issue is being spun, and I fear you are conveniently being taken hook, line and sinker. Alistair Campbell seems to be keeping true to form.

Where exactly does your issue lie? Is it with Tana Umaga? Is it your perception of New Zealanders trying to be "hard"? Is it the injury? Is it simply the fact that he wasn't cited? In which case if he had been cited and cleared what would your reaction have been?

At the end of the day exactly how a player reacts to accidently injuring another player is largely window dressing and certainly not worthy of the media circus that has arisen from this, let alone your views on how the apparently morally-superior Lions player would react being pure conjecture. It's this kind of mentality that lays the ground for racism in general.


I'm enlightened by your critical analysis of NZ culture V English culture. Do go on...


And I expect you'll still be harping on about this at the end of the tour. It does provide a convenient way of saying how hard done by the Lions were, while unfortunately not explaining away a defeat, allows CW and seemingly yourself, to draw something from a poor performance.

All this aside, I expect a much better match next Saturday. The Lions should have sorted out their line out problems, and given the All Blacks relatively low scoreline margin with almost 100% lineout success, should allow the Lions to capitalise more. A better all round performance *should* be on the cards against an All Black side that still lacks the ability ot finish off the gound they make.

In reply to wcdave:

Yes, I noticed that incident. Though mind you raking, while it may hurt, isn't going to incapacitate anyone. To do the Lions forwards justice, I don't think they'd have done any different.

But the rucking thing seems in my time watching the game to have become universal.

I would also have thought the brutality gap had been rather closed in recent years - I don't think Johnson would have lagged behind in this sphere.

I guess really you're agreeing with me in thinking that this incident illustrates different attitudes?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

To a degree aye.

I'm not saying that that style is exclusive to NZ rugby, as the likes of Brian Moore, Martin Johnson, even someone like Danny Grewcock to an extent, show. All those players were very 'hard', mostly within the laws of the game, but very often outside it. I'm sure you remember the '74 tour to SA John, and the infamous '99' call. Now that was a BRUTAL tour, probably the most violent in history. The difference is though, our examples are all isolated incidents. Every NZ pack that I've ever seen has never been afraid to dish it out, or live on the very fringes of the law, to gain the upper hand.

You're right, I'm sure any of the Lions forwards would've done the same as Jack last week. Difference is though, I suspect, the media here would've made a meal of it, questioning the legitamacy of such play.

The difference is, I think, despite those examples above, we don't have the same 'win at all costs' mentality that the NZ'ers, and Australia, exhibit in their rugby playing. They don't accept defeat, and will do anything to achieve it, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

I quoted it somewhere else, but in the NZ tour over here in 1978, in the game against Wales, they were trailing 12-10 going into the last 5 minutes. From a line-out in the Welsh half, Andy Haydn threw himself out of the line-out, deceived the referee into thinking he'd been pushed, won NZ a penalty, which they kicked. Final score...13-12 to NZ.
The discussions of THAT penalty still take place today, nearly 30 years later. If the roles had been reversed would I have been happy with a Welsh player exhibiting such unsporting behaviour??? Damn right I would've.

I guess my point is, to a degree, rugby in the NH still carries remnants of the 'gentleman's game' image. Far better to play good game and lose, than have to resort to 'cheating' in order to win. I think that's where the difference in attitude manifests itself.

I think that's clearly evident in the difference in reactions to the O'Driscoll incident last week.

In reply to wcdave:

I think we are pussycats compared to the 'boks.

In reply to nz Cragrat: I think I'd say all the S/H playing countries are more 'streetwise' than any of the N/H ones. SA agreed. And they make no attemp to conceal it either.

In fact, I WOULD class them as dirty, cheating, tw*ts!!

In reply to wcdave:

Now if it had been Jonny who was 'targeted' and injured I might believe it was intentional and premeditated. After all, of the home Nations the English are the most hated. BOD is unfortunate.

Andy Hadens dive is just one incident of many many professional fouls that happen in all international rugby. Don't kid me that the NH teams are lily white be it violence or trickery to milk penalties etc.

Lets kill this forum and focus on the Test at the weekend?

In reply to nz Cragrat: I agree, this issue should've been put to bed. I'm not knocking the S/H teams, I'm saying I wish our lot would get some of the same 'winning' mentality in them that you lot have.

Anyway, after saying that, I'm expecting a pretty brutal affair this weekend

In reply to wcdave:

Cheers mate, (for agreeing the issue should have been put to bed).

Weather is going to be good.

AB's weakened by loss of Hayman (6' 4'') good lineout lifter.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

There's someone who knows about real passion!

I still find it hard to believe that people don't think that this was pre-meditated (not yhe injuring maybe, but the 'taking out'). It's been part of the game in certain circles for years (however much Dean pleads his innocence ).

In reply to David Martin:
>As for hometown bias: South Africa and New Zealand are of course separated by quite a stetch of water.

Yes, yes, obviously. A hometown decision is one made in favour of the home team, not in favour of the referee's home team. When Man U get one of their usual penalties and we call the ref a homer, it doesn't mean he's from Manchester.

>I have said from the start I gain no satisfaction from O'Driscoll being taken out (and little from seeing the Lions lose in the way they did) and in my opinion it is a tragedy:

Maybe, but you're a spectator. I'm quite sure the ABs are nothing but pleased that he isn't playing and I'm quite sure if the situation were reversed the Lions would be pleased too. The difference I was pointing to was in the fact that I think the Lions would have handled it differently publicly.

>On the contrary, reading variously around it seems some will be taking immense joy from seeing Tana Umaga intentionally taken out in the next match. Charming.

I make no bones about it, it would give me great pleasure to see him taken out by a hit from, say, Lewsey, and I'm sure the vast majority of supporters would say the same. When Lewsey broke Mat Rogers' rib with a massive (legal) hit a couple of years ago, there was a huge roar, players spoke about what a boost it gave them, you name it. Me, I loved it. It's the nature of the game.

'Intentionally' taken out - well to be honest yes, I would settle for that. If he'd come out and apologised that would be different, but I've not rated the way he and the Blacks have behaved since one little bit. And should it happen I bet you'll hear a roar of approval from any pub you're watching it in. I don't think the anger felt here is much to do with spin.


>You really are trying to paint that this one incident is illustrative of a culture as a whole

Totally. You don't think one incident can illustrate a whole culture? I'll tell you one little cultural detail I've noticed, virtually every supportive NZ supporter talks about 'Tana and Keven'. You'd never find people here talking about 'Martin and Lawrence', say.

>and something quite above what the (finger chewing) Lions would be capable of.

Certainly not: of course the Lions could go in for dirty play; any decent team can. I don't think you'd have seen it handled afterwards in quite the same way.

>I'd be interested in where you think this gentlemanly divide lies: is it Southern Hemisphere rugby?

My impression is that SA and NZ are particularly into the macho hard thing which this incident has illuminated. Australia less so; their self-image tends to run more to a beer after the match, that sort of thing. I think an Australian team would probably have shown what we would consider more class.

>Perhaps just from teams that happen to beat the Lions?

Yeah, yeah. I notice, by the way, that it's OK to stererotype us (and the Irish, presumably?) as whinging Poms.


I can certainly understand why it has infuriated the Lions. It's lowered Umaga and New Zealand rugby in my estimation, and I imagine for the Lions it's a lot more personal.

>Or is unsettling the AB side and winning the next game worth this?

Oh, of course. Goes without saying. Same from the ABs' side, obviously. But I doubt it has much effect on the ABs' side: if you've looked you'll have seen the ABs spinning that issue as bringing them closer together.

>Alistair Campbell seems to be keeping true to form.

I don't think Campbell's powers reach quite so far as you think. I doubt he had much influence on the editorial in the New Zealand Herald saying that the incident had shamed New Zealand rugby, or on Michael Lynagh, Mickey Skinner or Charlie Vyvyan, all of whom have been on TV here condemning the citing official and Umaga.


Mainly just interest, as I've said several times. I find the citing official's decision quite amazing and I'm interested in having it explained on a technical level, and I'm always interested in hearing sportsmen speak about their game, whether it's like this during a series where I assume they have one eye on their effect on the opposition or in more unguarded moments.

>Is it with Tana Umaga?

I think this was unacceptably dirty play and he should have apologised, yes.

>Is it your perception of New Zealanders trying to be "hard"?

Not really, no. I just find it interesting. Do you seriously imagine, by the way, that this isn't an element in rugby players' public pronouncements?

>Is it the injury?

As I've said, that inevitably magnifies the interest in the thing.

>Is it simply the fact that he wasn't cited?

That's certainly the thing that first attracted my interest, yes.

>In which case if he had been cited and cleared what would your reaction have been?

Still fairly bemused, but I would have been interested to hear what was said.

Largely, I agree.

>and certainly not worthy of the media circus that has arisen from this,

Now there I don't agree. If it interests the public, it's worthy of a media circus. And I for one certainly find it interesting.

>let alone your views on how the apparently morally-superior Lions player would react being pure conjecture.

Now, now. I've said several times it's a matter of culture not morals. Don't be so sensitive.

>It's this kind of mentality that lays the ground for racism in general.

Cobblers. Racism is a serious thing, discussion of different national cultures is not. Using words like that in vain is unappealing.


I'll still be interested, certainly. You can be sure this will what this tour is remembered for in thirty years' time.

>It does provide a convenient way of saying how hard done by the Lions were, while unfortunately not explaining away a defeat, allows CW and seemingly yourself, to draw something from a poor performance.

Spoken like a true All Black media man. Never mind what's happened, go on the attack.

jcm

In reply to Kipper:

My mate reminded me today, incidentally, that he said before the series the ABs would target O'Driscoll and Wilkinson and try and rough them up. Pity he didn't have a bet on THAT.

Premeditation - Dean must be right of course that you can't actually have a plan to catch O'Driscoll at the first ruck and spear him. But trying deliberately to rough up the opponent's key player and if possible injure him - well, it happens often enough in football; why not rugby?

Putting the issue to bed - O'Sullivan is right; the main reason it hasn't gone to bed is the way the Blacks have behaved since. That and the fact the citing official gave no reasons and consequently the Lions never had their say. That's why I think the Blacks would regard it as unmanly to apologise. I can't think they actually want this in the arena quite as much as it has been, but they can't bring themselves to do what would make it go away.

jcm

jcm

In reply to wcdave:

I don't think the media here would have made anything at all of the Jack incident; happens all the time in games I see over here. Having said that I suspect the NZ forwards would have made a better job of it.

jcm

In reply to Dean: At the moment it is gloroious in Wellington, has been all week (was wild the other night, though fine again in the day), not a cloud in the sky, cold but not too windy either. looks like that is going to hold:

Forescast: Fine over most of the country, with frosts. However, cloud increasing in the west of the South Island and rain developing in South Westland and Fiordland.

I'm not sure if the BoD thing is going to be a distraction or the incident that ignites the tour, guess that depends on if we win.

cheers

Iain

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

On another continent far far away....

There are stinks - and there are real stinks, such as in Harare last weekend when Zimbabwe played Senegal. A classic match report by Hope Chizuzu of Zimbabwe's Sunday Mail newspaper explained how Senegal repeatedly committed fouls, with the finale being Zimbabwe hero Dave Cloete being belted in the jaw. Chizuzu reported: "The Senegal players took the fight to the stand, where they came off second best with bloodied noses as testimony of their barbarism. The referee blew the whistle signalling the end of the match, giving Zimbabwe a 21-15 victory. The enraged Senegalese, led by the president of their union, caused a commotion resulting in the arrest of the SRU vice-president for beating up a police officer." Wonder if this will make the next glossy International Rugby Board magazine? Still, sledge of the week goes to an Irish Sunday paper involving Sir Clive Woodward. It said that if the Queen had seen the Lions' first-Test drubbing, she might have considered "stripping the bumbling fool of his knighthood".

In reply to Dave Orsman:

Interesting piece in The Telegraph today, an interview with Meads and Willie John conducted over a beer or two. Here is what Meads had to say on the matter in hand:

'You're right, Willie John. Regardless what anybody thinks of the tackle on Brian O'Driscoll, Tana should have been round the Lions team hotel on Saturday night - Sunday night at the latest - with a crate of beer. It might have been frosty to start with but the thaw would have soon started. There's a lot of merit in the old ways."

In reply to Horse:


Amen to that.

In reply to Horse:

You asked a while ago about the Barmy Army....

Some kiwi bar owners are claiming the English cricket fan club the Barmy Army has failed to rally Lions-supporting troops, leaving them with far less business than what the army's organisers led them to believe.

Many tourists say they do not affiliate themselves with club, and have not been drinking at bars billed as their headquarters.

Dunedin bar owner Lindsay McKinney was encouraged by Barmy Army organiser Freddie Parker to spend several thousand dollars preparing his bar for an onslaught of army supporters.

"They came to us and expected...plasma TVs, big screens, live music, all sorts of games," says McKinney.

The problem was that very few fans said they wanted to be part of the Barmy Army.

"I think the whole thing was over-hyped...I think there were a number of people who've had their fingers burnt," says McKinney.

Organisers in Palmerston North set up a special Barmy Army base.

"We were lead to believe that there was going to be lots of people associated with being in the base, and they were to be practising all their songs both before the game and after the game," says Sport Manawatu's Campaign Manager Stu Baker.

"Most people who were...part of the Lions support group went to different sorts of bars," says Baker.

After weeks of publicity, Freddy Parker could not be reached for reaction on Friday.

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Doesn't surprise me, as I said at the outset Lions supporters are not really the Barmy Army.

I did see a snippet somewhere that on the way to the test match a couple of Lions supporters helped out when a New Zealander collapsed of a heart attack. Unfortunatly it was to no avail. I suppose as far as news is concerned that is not such good story. Still nice to know some still have a sense of perspective.

BTW if you want to see the rest of the Meads article go to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

You have to register to access the sports stuff but the article is a good read.

In reply to Horse:
I can't find it here on line but there was a big article in todays Press thanking the Lions supporters - a nurse, a doctor and a policeman who spent 20 mins trying to recusitate him.Others used their flags to screen the incident from the crowd.

Complaints:
The Lions are to complain to the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) about the shortage of medical back-up during the first test in Christchurch to attend to injured captain Brian O'Driscoll, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper.

A report today said there was a 15-minute delay before O'Driscoll was given morphine to ease the pain of his dislocated shoulder in Christchurch last Saturday.

O'Driscoll suffered the tour-ending injury in the second minute of the match when he was cleaned out off the ball by All Blacks Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu.

In addition to O'Driscoll having to wait for the morphine, the report said there was only one ambulance available at Jade Stadium because a male spectator had earlier suffered a fatal heart attack.

A Lions spokesperson said the tourists' medical staff fully sympathised with the family of the deceased but were "surprised" at the lack of adequate back-up facilities which led to the subsequent delay in treating O'Driscoll.

ions trio in battle to save NZ fan
28 June 2005

By KIM THOMAS

The family of a 45-year-old man who died while queueing for the All Blacks-Lions test in Christchurch wants to thank three British and Irish Lions supporters who fought to save his life.

Anthony Bernard Duncan, of Dunedin, suffered a heart attack and died despite attempts to revive him by the three mystery Britons and an ambulance crew.

Duncan's father-in-law, Peter Ashcroft, was with Duncan outside Jade Stadium on Saturday night when he collapsed.

Ashcroft said that within a minute of his son-in-law collapsing three people dressed in Lions supporters' garb identified themselves as medical staff and rushed to his aid.

Ashcroft said the British trio performed cardio-pulmonary resuscitation on Duncan for about 20 minutes before an ambulance, caught up in heavy pre-match traffic, arrived.

He said the trio comprised two female nurses and a male doctor.

Ashcroft said that when the ambulance arrived, the three Britons disappeared before he could thank them.

"They couldn't look me in the eye because I think they knew Tony wouldn't make it," Ashcroft said.

"But I wish I could have said thank you for all they did.

"We (the family) know they did everything possible to try to save him."

Duncan's heart attack happened without warning as the two men waited among a sellout crowd outside Jade Stadium. "We thought we'd go to the rugby together because we both like rugby and we're good mates," Ashcroft said.

"We were standing there and suddenly it happened.

"It all went horrible when Tony collapsed."

Duncan's death came as a "complete shock", his father-in-law said.

Ashcroft said his son-in-law was a passionate rugby supporter who had dedicated at least seven years to coaching schoolboy rugby.

Duncan had coached the Taieri Blues rugby team during the years his son, Mitchell, 12, played for it.

For the past two years, Duncan had coached representative schoolboy rugby for the Otago Rugby Football Union.

Ashcroft said that this year the union had promoted Duncan to selector and manager of schoolboy rugby, as well as retaining him as a coach.

Rugby had been a family affair for the Duncans.

Duncan's daughter, Morgan, 14, had been the "water girl" for teams her father coached.

Duncan took his two children to watch Otago play the Lions this month at Carisbrook.

"He was a great dad," Ashcroft said.

"He would do anything for his kids. His hobbies were doing things with them."

In reply to nz Cragrat:
Sad thng to happen

In reply to Horse:

Excellent - sounds like something out of Private Eye.

Also an interesting article by Alastair Campbell in the Times. I like Lewsey's reaction when they said they were going to cite TU: 'He just laughed and said, "We're in New Zealand, you know.".'

Seems too that ex-All Black wing and try-scoring record holder Stuart Wilson has gone on NZ television saying the AB reaction 'hasn't been good enough'. Should make him popular.

And just for balance, Barrie Macdermott in the Metro says he doesn't understand the fuss. Mind you, League attitudes are a bit different.

jcm

In reply to Horse:

In reply to Anonymous:

Not surprised by the Lewsey reaction at all. You have to remember he has been on the receiving end before, having had his face mashed in a stamping incident by Ali Williams in 2003. Nothing happened about that either. And there was Rowntree in 1998... need we say more.

In reply to Horse: The story about the Lions supporters trying to help the heart attack victim was widely covered in the NZ press - there's an effort going to identify those folk as the family wishes to personally thank them.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

That is pleasing to hear.

As far as I am aware it hasn't been widely covered here no doubt Campbell thought it would have detracted from the weeks main news story so put a lid on it

In reply to Horse: Just looking at stuff.co.nz, there's a few good interviews with Lions players (and not so many with ABs, what's going on? Could some sectors of the NZ press be in the pay of Campbell now?) Apparently, Campbell's op-ed piece got a page of its own in the Dominion-Post, the big Wellington daily. So some pretty fair coverage, I'd say (though possibly intended by the editors to really antagonise and fire up the ABs).

By the way, in the interview with Meads and WJ, WJ mentions "craic" - do you know what he means by this?

Cheers.

In reply to Dave Orsman:

It is an Irish term with no direct English equivalent. Something like for the hell of it or the fun of it, the experience etc in my experience usually, and the context of that article, associated with alcohol but not necessarily so.

In reply to Horse: Thanks.

In reply to Horse: Second that. Even English people use the term!