Spearing O'Driscoll is alright then?

The "tackle" was a disgrace. It was awful and has no place in rugby.

The failure to deal appropriately with the disgraceful "tackle" at the time was a disgrace.

Graham Henry's comment that it is time to "move on" and stop dwelling on the spear tackle is naive, wrong and a disgrace.

Oh course it doesn't change the result but a little grown up honesty wouldn't go amiss. It's not as though it was a deliberate ploy and they had practised the manoeuvre.

Chris

Chris

How do you know that the spear tackle, perpetrated against the opponents' captain in the first minute of the first Test, was not a deliberate manoeuvre that had been practised in advance?

Graham

The Kiwis like to smother the ball and their forwards love to ruck, not maul. Spearing is an inevitability when you get a 2 man hit under that philosophy.

Slow down the ball and get it on the floor and kick the shit out of anyone who gets in the way (your man or thiers).

One way that this may have been prevented would be if referees played the offside rule as agressively as southern hemisphere teams feel free to violate it. Move the ball 10m forward and take the penalty from there, manadatory penalty try for deliberate offside in the 22. It would / should slow down some of the static hits.

Mind you, what do I know. I was a prop and the murkiness of the scrum never seems to be scrutínised. No one ever gave me much sympathy for broken noses and depressed facture of cheek bone or nasty hairline fracture of occipital (? - around the eye socket) bone.

Rugby is for thugs, its an awful "sport"

My understanding was that you tackled the man with the ball. When the ball has gone you leave him alone.

My recall is that O'Driscoll was tackled late anyway, and then, with the ball over the other side of the pitch, he was dumped on his head.

Premiditated, maybe. Stupid possibly. Dangerous-definitely. Dangerous play should be penalised for every player's benefit. I can excuse the referee (after all he was following play 20 yards away) but what about the line judge and then the video panel at a later date? The worst is that if players have no confidence in officialdom then someone will try to exact 'revenge' in a match and perhaps another player gets badly hurt.

Bruce

Cricket is of course a much more homourable game. Well, at least you are overtly trying to kill someone by hurling a ball at their head. Sorry, not hurling of course (James Kirtley excepted).

I imagine that watching the All Blacks over the next few weeks will be a bit like watching a porn film (not that I do that): the ABs will be attempting to spear anyone they come across with their mighty tackle!

G

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
Chris

How do you know that the spear tackle, perpetrated against the opponents' captain in the first minute of the first Test, was not a deliberate manoeuvre that had been practised in advance?

Graham

I don't, but I was diffident to suggest that it was

Chris

This pointless discussion is why I hate rugby.

Ever increasing violence in sport is to be expected. It is what their supporters like best.
Sport is an odious pretence at tribal war with simulated advertising and sponsorship. "Simulated" because the players and followers can't read. So the organisers developed the concept of "The Strip". Players and supporters can safely purchase this season's uniform without feeling they look like a total tosser despite being intellectually challenged. So all the supporters really need to do is ensure they all look perfectly alike while chanting their war cries. They can then safely participate in pre and post-match "warm-ups" for the real battle ahead... on the terraces.

The problem is always the double standards of the administrators.
Apply the same rules across all standards of the game.
Particularly the judiciary.

Blimey, you've still not moved on from this?

Well while we're all living in the past....

My personal opinion is that they just didn't like Clive Woodward. Alistair Campbell probably even less!

I think it's them we should blame. We should start by demanding that Woodward be dropped as coach of the Lions. No, I think he's gone too far this time, he needs to go...

Personally I feel for O'Driscoll but It's about time he let it go.

I really want to see Tana on the field against Ireland. whatever occurs he can handle it.

Pound for pound probably the best player in the world. And a good sort to boot


red

I used to love the game of rugby (I was fortunate to have played for my country at schools level and against New Zealand as it happens) but the attitude of the professional players of New Zealand is a real turn off.

I cannot buy into the concept of the "Win at all costs" which appears to be the namtra of New Zealand rugby.

Perhaps, they (or ther supporters) will come to recognise that there is no point in winning without glory (i.e you win but at too high a price via cheating)

It is extremely likely that the All Blacks would have won the Lions test series with engaging in thuggery (designed to remove a key player for the Lions) and this tour would have bee remembered for the great display of rugby skills.

All it is now remembered is for the attack on the Lions Captain. It ranks up there with the Bodyline bowling series when unsportmanly conduct destroyed an international tour series.

Had the All black captain had the good grace to commiserate with the injured Captain (as is expected as the player is leaving the field) and made an immediate statement after the game as to his disappointment and culpability for the "accident" then the matter could have been put to rest. However, the attitude displayed was one of uncaring and bravado.

I am glad that Mr Umaga did not take the field against Ireland in the recent test. I certainly would not pay to watch thuggery from an ungratious so called Sportsman.

And to think that he is a Captain of a National side. Beggars belief.

Yours in Sport. P

I did not see the tackle but I believe the NZ Rugby League test match produced a bit of a horror, the player has been banned for one game. I heard the NZ coach say he thought this was totally excessive. Commentators (not entirely neutral of course) seemed to think it was ridiculously lenient. Looks like the NZ approach to these matters is fairly one-eyed in both codes, and more importantly the authorities seem to be weak and inconsistent.

I think back to a game at the last World Cup where an Australian prop dropped down with a neck injury and the prompt action of his opponents to stop pushing possibly saved his spinal cord. Respect has to be a part of these potentially violent games, if the lawmakers do not punish people who step outside this then the consequences may be pretty severe.

Bruce

Hi Pat

I think "the tackle" was dangerous and should have been dealt with appropriately at the time.

I'm sad that you've lost your passion for the game and you obviously feel very emotional about that. So emotional in fact that you've managed to "attack" the All Blacks, Tana Umanga and NZ supporters (which I suppose is the general population of NZ) all in the one post. Well done, quite an achievement.

I found elements of your post to be, well... offensive. So given you've had your say I hope you don't mind me having mine.

quote:

I cannot buy into the concept of the "Win at all costs" which appears to be the namtra of New Zealand rugby.

I don't think the NZ team wishes to win at all costs, I don't think any team does. There have been "uncompromising" players from all nations over the years. The English team prides itself on being tough, always has. It's been in the game since year dot.

I find it very surprising that as a previous player you don't know this?

quote:

Perhaps, they (or ther supporters) will come to recognise that there is no point in winning without glory (i.e you win but at too high a price via cheating)

Has some Kiwi wound you up Pat?

Winning without glory? I think you mean winning without honour. If I saw the Irish team lose last weekend without "spirit", does that offset a win without honour?

If you accusing the AB's of cheating, well I'm afraid....you'd be right! You'd also find it extremely hard to find any team that does not cheat at any level of the game. The game is full of technicalities and subjective rulings - even the damn refs can't agree! If you'd be so kind as to direct me to an International game where an individual team did not infringe (cheat), I'd be most grateful.

quote:

It is extremely likely that the All Blacks would have won the Lions test series with engaging in thuggery

Are you serious? Did you actually see any of the games?

quote:

(designed to remove a key player for the Lions)

I'm afraid you lost your "cred" with me with your previous tour summary.

quote:

All it is now remembered is for the attack on the Lions Captain.

I too will remember the tour with disappointment, obviously not for the same reasons as yourself.

quote:

Had the All black captain had the good grace to commiserate with the injured Captain (as is expected as the player is leaving the field) and made an immediate statement after the game as to his disappointment and culpability for the "accident" then the matter could have been put to rest. However, the attitude displayed was one of uncaring and bravado.

Maybe you are right. I would've like to have seen that too. I'm not as sure as you that it would really have made any real difference though.

quote:

I am glad that Mr Umaga did not take the field against Ireland in the recent test. I certainly would not pay to watch thuggery from an ungratious so called Sportsman.

Tana Umaga is an outstanding NZer, All Black and leader. If you're going to take one incident and "brand" a career player then your opinion is neither well considered or honorable IMHO.

quote:

Yours in Sport. P

I don't think your post really had much to do about sport Pat. I think you're being a tad disingenuous there.

I have some great "discussions" with my work colleagues and friends about rugby matters here in the UK. They're intensive but good natured and respectful. I would really like to think that the Naim forum would be like that too. Alas the internet allows some to behave like like Ren and Stimpy.

I'd be the first to step up and say everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but there's opinion and then there's just crap....

Jay

quote:

I don't think the NZ team wishes to win at all costs, I don't think any team does. There have been "uncompromising" players from all nations over the years. The English team prides itself on being tough, always has. It's been in the game since year dot.

Do a Google search for Andy Haden, Wales, New Zealand, 1978

Some people with long memories might disgaree with your denial of the "win at all costs" mantra, but I tend to agree with your sentiment. Mind you, that tour also saw the horredous raking of JPR Williams' head in the Bridgend game.

The U21 Maoris were a bunch of teddy bears compared to the monsters we ran into in France

PS - for what it's worth, as a Taff, I accept that the penalty was for Geoff Wheel's shenaningans and not Haden's salmon impersonation.

Here's looking forward to a great weekend of rugby and fair play, even if I have to follow it on the internet

quote:

Originally posted by Huwge:

PS - for what it's worth, as a Taff

My wife and I have been to Cardiff for the last two Wales vs AB games. What an amazing experience, before during and after the game.

Jay

Jay,

I believe you are a UK-based NZer, am I right?

In which case may I first acknowledge, as a Brit, that the 2005 Lions were clearly overmatched against a far superior All Black outfit whose games was leagues ahead. It's unlikely that one single tackle, however severe, would have changed the outcome of the series.

I also agree that Tana Umaga is an excellent player and as captain has served his country well as a real driving force. I have no doubt he is a man that you and your countryman have every right to be proud of.

With all that said, I saw the tackle that he and Keven Mealamu carried out on Brian O'Driscoll and it was pretty scary. I don't think, however, that they set out to deliberately maim the Lions captain, as O'Driscoll himself has since acknowledged, but even you must agree that the tackle looked extremely dangerous and could have potentially blighted O'Driscoll's career for good.

The IRB should definitely have investigated it further, IMO, and imposed some sort of sanction on Umanga and Mealamu for what they did. I can't help feeling, though, that some sort of behind-the-scenes politics was at play here. Umaga is no doubt one of the biggest draws in the game, and for him to suddenly find himself withdrawn from the series as a result of a tackle at the beginning of the first match of that series...well, gate receipts anyone?

It seems to me that tackles of this type, however, appear to betray a feature of the New Zealand game, if Ma'a Nonu's tackle last Saturday is anything to go by. The point of this ramble? New Zealand are still a great side and it would not surprise me if they achieve the grand slam on their current tour; it just has to be acknowledged, IMHO, that some of their efforts to tackle opposing players can be over the top, and as such a little out of character with the usually controlled way of the All Blacks' game.

Cheers,

Jon

Dear Jon,

I find games-manship, in all its various forms, most off-putting. It has spoiled my onetime interest in rugger, and increasingly in cricket. I honestly never enjoyed soccer, but I think your post absolutely sums up what is both right and also wrong with the rugby football today. Splendid, and seconded.

All the best from Fredrik

The recent Australia v Uruguay World Cup qualifier had shirt-pulling, shorts-pulling, diving in the penalty area, face-pushing, a forearm in the face, and over 50 fouls. It's just business as usual these days, nobody raised an eyebrow.

Steve

quote:

I believe you are a UK-based NZer, am I right?

Hi Jon. Yes that's right. Laraine and I moved to London last year.

quote:

In which case may I first acknowledge, as a Brit, that the 2005 Lions were clearly overmatched against a far superior All Black outfit whose games was leagues ahead. It's unlikely that one single tackle, however severe, would have changed the outcome of the series.

I also agree that Tana Umaga is an excellent player and as captain has served his country well as a real driving force. I have no doubt he is a man that you and your countryman have every right to be proud of.

With all that said, I saw the tackle that he and Keven Mealamu carried out on Brian O'Driscoll and it was pretty scary. I don't think, however, that they set out to deliberately maim the Lions captain, as O'Driscoll himself has since acknowledged, but even you must agree that the tackle looked extremely dangerous and could have potentially blighted O'Driscoll's career for good.

The IRB should definitely have investigated it further, IMO, and imposed some sort of sanction on Umanga and Mealamu for what they did. I can't help feeling, though, that some sort of behind-the-scenes politics was at play here. Umaga is no doubt one of the biggest draws in the game, and for him to suddenly find himself withdrawn from the series as a result of a tackle at the beginning of the first match of that series...well, gate receipts anyone?

I completely agree with you on every point.

I really do wish that the issue was dealt with appropriately at the time. I do understand why people were upset at the time and still are. There's been little meaningful closure and it looks highly unlikely there will be any.

I don't know what went on behind the scenes. It would be extremely interesting to know. The incident happened right in front of the touch judge but neither he or the referee had anything to say about it in the game. That may have been very important in the resulting investigation.

As as aside I don't think there would be any problem with gate reciepts if Tana wasn't playing. They could've sold the grounds out 3 times over such was the pull of playing the Lions!

quote:

It seems to me that tackles of this type, however, appear to betray a feature of the New Zealand game, if Ma'a Nonu's tackle last Saturday is anything to go by. The point of this ramble? New Zealand are still a great side and it would not surprise me if they achieve the grand slam on their current tour; it just has to be acknowledged, IMHO, that some of their efforts to tackle opposing players can be over the top, and as such a little out of character with the usually controlled way of the All Blacks' game.

The NZ game/team is really under the spotlight and I suppose that's to be expected. Nonu's tackle that you mention was dangerous, judged to be so in the game and a penalty awarded, he was cited and no further action was deemed to be appropriate. It's interesting to note that there were at least 4 questionable tackles in the International games that weekend.

http://www.planetrugby.com/Off_The_Field/Laws_And_Referees/Law_Discussions/story_47414.shtml

One was even judged to have been a "spear tackle" by the ref "in the game". Yet no player was subsequently identified or cited?

Thanks for such a reasonable posting and I'm not saying that because you said some nice things about New Zealand! I believe in credit where credit is due, all of these teams and players have worked extremely hard to get where they are. When folks boil a whole tour down one incident, they completely belittle the contribution or commitment from the players involved. Viewing from the armchair like you and I it's very easy to criticise but as a player, it's your life. No one will feel the glory of winning or the of pain of defeat any harder.

FWIW I think the All Blacks are going to get an extremely tough game today. I think that NZ can lose but I hope they don't, because I'm going!

Cheers
Jay

Jay and Fred,

Thanks for comments (and your compliments!) and Jay for the excellent link. I guess one of the aspects that is highlighted by this whole issue is one of consistency, and, as your link clearly shows, the problem is that spear tackles are not defined specifically in the laws as they are in rugby league. Consequently, and seemingly in the absence of backup by a "video referee", the referee on the pitch has to make a judgement call, and when you think about all the other things going through a ref's mind in the midst of an intense international match, no walk in the park I imagine.

Thinking back to the Nonu tackle, when he lifted D'Arcy off the ground, I did notice that the player was allowed to put his hand on the ground to break his fall, so I agree that in this particular case an excessive punishment for Nonu would be harsh to say the least.

Fred, to address your concerns, I can well understand them and let's face it, rugby has changed a lot over the years, not least because of the advent of the game turning professional a decade ago. Unlike in the amateur era, rugby union players play for their livelihoods, as Jay points out, it is full-time, full-on, and not something to try and fit into their normal working lives! As a result players have all the time in the world to get fitter, stronger, faster, more powerful, and inevitably rugby matches these days involve hits much bigger and more exacting, and potentially more injurious, than in amateur days.

It does make the game more spectacular, and if you compare it to games played in the 70s, say, it certainly makes it a helluva lot faster! I guess the by-product of this is that more players will take hits and more will get injured. Rugby League OTOH, having been professional since its birth - it's raison d'etre after the "great schism" with union a century or so ago, has had a lot longer to develop and mature, so thinking about it it's no real surprise that the league rules are more specific and clearly better defined than those of union.

Lastly, I agree Jay that the "gate receipts" idea was pretty weak for a theory - that serves me right for trying to construct an articulate post at quarter to one in the morning!

Cheers,

Jon

Not sure about that comment about the 70s Jon, haven't seen anything like this recently

Huw

Ah well, you see Huw, there's always the exception that proves the rule!

Cheers,

Jon