South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July

by **George Carlin** Sun 11 Jul 2021, 9:09 am

First topic message reminder :

South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July - Page 9 File-210

South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July - Page 9 Lions_10

SOUTH AFRICA A v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS
Wednesday 14 July
KO: 20:00 SAST / 19:00 UK / 22:00 Dubai Very Happy

Cape Town Stadium (Newlands), Cape Town
Sky Sports Main Event

Referee: Jaco Peyper
Assistant Referees: Wayne Barnes, AJ Jacobs
TMO: Marius Jonker

TEAMS:

SOUTH AFRICA A:
15 – Willie le Roux
14 – Cheslin Kolbe
13 – Lukhanyo Am (captain)
12 – Damian de Allende
11 – Sbu Nkosi
10 – Morné Steyn
9 – Faf de Klerk

8 – Jasper Wiese
7 – Pieter-Steph du Toit
6 – Marco van Staden
5 – Franco Mostert
4 – Eben Etzebeth
3 – Trevor Nyakane
2 – Joseph Dweba
1 – Steven Kitshoff

Replacements (from):
16 – Malcolm Marx
17 – Coenie Oosthuizen
18 – Vincent Koch
19 – Nicolaas Janse van Rensburg
20 – Rynhardt Elstadt
21 – Herschel Jantjies
22 – Jesse Kriel
23 – Damian Willemse
24 – Kwagga Smith
25 – Elton Jantjies

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS:
15. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, England) #816
14. Louis Rees-Zammit (Gloucester Rugby, Wales) #846
13. Chris Harris (Gloucester Rugby, Scotland) #844
12. Bundee Aki (Connacht Rugby, Ireland) #837
11. Josh Adams (Cardiff Rugby, Wales) #836
10. Dan Biggar (Northampton Saints, Wales) #821
9. Conor Murray – captain (Munster Rugby, Ireland) #790

1. Wyn Jones (Scarlets, Wales) #842
2. Ken Owens (Scarlets, Wales) #829
3. Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears, England) #814
4. Maro Itoje (Saracens, England) #825
5. Iain Henderson (Ulster Rugby, Ireland) #808
6. Josh Navidi (Cardiff Rugby, Wales) #854
7. Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, England) #853
8. Taulupe Faletau (Bath Rugby, Wales) #779

16. Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, England) #851
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, England) #787
18. Zander Fagerson (Glasgow Warriors, Scotland) #848
19. Adam Beard (Ospreys, Wales) #852
20. Tadhg Beirne (Munster Rugby, Ireland) #838
21. Sam Simmonds (Exeter Chiefs, England) #849
22. Gareth Davies (Scarlets, Wales) #850
23. Elliot Daly (Saracens, England) #822

COMMENTARY:

by Geordie Thu 15 Jul 2021, 12:57 pm

TJ wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:How has Johnny Hill played at lock this tour?

IMO just sort of Meh! Neither obviously poor nor obviously good

I had a feeling that might be the case...

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 1:04 pm

I think Morne Steyn was tested to see whether he still has what it takes at international level. Our problem is after Pollard there isn’t anyone that stands out. Elton Jantjies is error prone, so against a Lions team I don’t see him as an option.

by **RDW** Thu 15 Jul 2021, 1:07 pm

Old Man wrote:I think Morne Steyn was tested to see whether he still has what it takes at international level. Our problem is after Pollard there isn’t anyone that stands out. Elton Jantjies is error prone, so against a Lions team I don’t see him as an option.

Is that a lack of succession planning on just not the players coming through? Steyn is 37!

You obviously not been helped by not playing any games since the WC to bring new options through.

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 1:14 pm

RDW wrote:
Old Man wrote:I think Morne Steyn was tested to see whether he still has what it takes at international level. Our problem is after Pollard there isn’t anyone that stands out. Elton Jantjies is error prone, so against a Lions team I don’t see him as an option.

Is that a lack of succession planning on just not the players coming through? Steyn is 37!

You obviously not been helped by not playing any games since the WC to bring new options through.

The problem is the players that showed promise has failed to cement their reputation.

Bosch has become the unreliable confidence player with the added advantage of being a turnstyle in defence and has lost his ability (belief) to hit the line.

Damian Willemse during the Trials end of last year showed immense immaturity and has fallen out of favour as a ten, although he is a highly talented player he cannot direct a team from ten, he is now seen/groomed as the next Frans Steyn, hopefully turning out to be a super sub at 12/15

by **George Carlin** Thu 15 Jul 2021, 1:25 pm

eirebilly wrote:Agree, re Sexton. He can still do it and is still a very viable option. Not a great choice in not selecting him.

by **George Carlin** Thu 15 Jul 2021, 1:41 pm

Stormers v British & Irish Lions - 17/7/21 - 17:00 ko. (606v2.com)

by WELL-PAST-IT Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:18 pm

Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted

by No 7&1/2 Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:20 pm

'"I can’t understand where the comments were that there was no contact to the head," he added. "Someone was watching a different picture to me.

"I thought it looked reckless to me. No arms and he’s hit the arm first and then the shoulder, but there’s definitely head on head contact.

"We’ve got a meeting with the referees tomorrow just to get a bit of clarity on that. What we want is clarity so that we get complete consistency.

"The citing commissary looks at those things.

"It’ll be interesting to see what the referees come back with and what other people who have looked at come back with in terms of what the recommendations were for that incident."

Some quotes from Gatland on de Klerks yellow. Really hope he offers up the results of that conversation. Still scratching my head as to how they didn't see the head contact.

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:32 pm

I get people want to see consistency, I get people want dirty play sorted and I get safety of players are paramount.

But I believe common sense is as important.

Forgive me for not having the players names readily available.

Faf de Klerk goes into the ball carrier with the shoulder, the ball carrier has a hammer behind him, driving the ball carrier forward and down, De Klerk “connects” with his back of his head onto the Hammer’s chin area.

Since when do we now extend the liability of the tackler to the hammer contributing firstly to the contact, but also the consequences of there being an extra player taking part in the contact?

Its like saying Maro Itoje should have been red carded for hitting Kyle Sinckler on the head during the RWC final when they attempted to tackler Mapimpi.

Where is the common sense?

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:34 pm

Don’t get me wrong, if Faf is banned I won’t have much of an issue as I would prefer Reinach. However the responsibility of the tackler cannot surely be extended to the hammer driving in behind the ball carrier, that in my view is ridiculous

by No 7&1/2 Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:38 pm

Navidi is the 'hammer' (not heard that phrase for this, generally a latcher up here).

In terms of the question on whether the tackler is liable for punishment of head to head yes he is. Given that he was also never in contention to make a legal tackle I don't think mitigation would be brought into it either (see Tuilagi vs Wales).

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:40 pm

We aren’t going to agree on this, you and me, you only look at the head to head, blaming it on the tackler, and exonerating the hammer.

by jimbopip Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:49 pm

My take on the Faf incident: he is defending his line with 100% commitment , he throws his body in front of the ball carrier, unfortunately he makes no attempt to make a tackle, in fact he almost turns his back on the Lions player's and leads with his shoulder, he also turns so he's looking over his other shoulder. Now, IMHO, there's no way he can be taking the safety and well being of his opponent into consideration. There is a clash of heads and whether accidental or not it is a result of Faf's actions. Red all day for me.

by mikey_dragon Thu 15 Jul 2021, 2:56 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted

Maybe check the correct thread.

by WELL-PAST-IT Thu 15 Jul 2021, 3:41 pm

The side was reported on here whilst I was reading this thread, hence the comment

by Collapse2005 Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:00 pm

jimbopip wrote:My take on the Faf incident: he is defending his line with 100% commitment , he throws his body in front of the ball carrier, unfortunately he makes no attempt to make a tackle, in fact he almost turns his back on the Lions player's and leads with his shoulder, he also turns so he's looking over his other shoulder. Now, IMHO, there's no way he can be taking the safety and well being of his opponent into consideration. There is a clash of heads and whether accidental or not it is a result of Faf's actions. Red all day for me.

Red card would have been ridiculous in my view.

by R!skysports Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:07 pm

Old Man wrote:We aren’t going to agree on this, you and me, you only look at the head to head, blaming it on the tackler, and exonerating the hammer.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Hammer has nothing to do with this?

He went in with a no arms shoulder charge (Yellow straight off) and clashed heads (red all day long). There is really no mitigating circumstances

The fact the ref and TMO said there was no head contact is why it was a yellow. However it is a clear as day there was and faf wend down clutching his head after hitting his head of another head.

Shocking decision

There was also a head tackle in the same ruck that was ignored

Glad he wasn't sent off for the game, but it makes a mockery of the laws and protecting players when someone can come in shoulder first and clash heads

by R!skysports Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:10 pm

Old Man wrote:Don’t get me wrong, if Faf is banned I won’t have much of an issue as I would prefer Reinach. However the responsibility of the tackler cannot surely be extended to the hammer driving in behind the ball carrier, that in my view is ridiculous

I really don't understand this at all

You blame the person behind for driving their player forward????

So if someone runs a liitle faster than expected it is their fault as well

faf went in shoulder first with no arms and caught the head. This has nothing to do with a person behind the ball carrier ????

by TJ Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:12 pm

YOu don't undersrtand how it works

its automatically foul play - a no arms tackle thats a penalty

, the next thing they look at is the point of contact - in this case the first point of contact is arm. slipping up to the head - thats a yellw direct to the head is red but thats not what Faff did. just on the body is penalty only

completely consistant with other incidents

I guess those quote are from the lions managment - its just troublemaking

its very clear, consistent with the rules and proceedure

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:20 pm

R!skysports wrote:
Old Man wrote:Don’t get me wrong, if Faf is banned I won’t have much of an issue as I would prefer Reinach. However the responsibility of the tackler cannot surely be extended to the hammer driving in behind the ball carrier, that in my view is ridiculous

I really don't understand this at all

You blame the person behind for driving their player forward????

So if someone runs a liitle faster than expected it is their fault as well

faf went in shoulder first with no arms and caught the head. This has nothing to do with a person behind the ball carrier ????

No, I am not blaming anyone, I am questioning the liability of the tackler. And it was not straight contact to the head, that is simply BS.

by R!skysports Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:31 pm

TJ wrote:YOu don't undersrtand how it works

its automatically foul play - a no arms tackle thats a penalty

, the next thing they look at is the point of contact - in this case the first point of contact is arm. slipping up to the head - thats a yellw direct to the head is red but thats not what Faff did. just on the body is penalty only

completely consistant with other incidents

I guess those quote are from the lions managment - its just troublemaking

its very clear, consistent with the rules and proceedure

Well it looked to me as he made simultaneous contact with his shoulder and head, hence why he bounced off clutching his head. But I will check again

by TJ Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:37 pm

He did get head on head contact - but its only the initial point of contact that counts

by Poorfour Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:45 pm

Old Man wrote:
R!skysports wrote:
Old Man wrote:Don’t get me wrong, if Faf is banned I won’t have much of an issue as I would prefer Reinach. However the responsibility of the tackler cannot surely be extended to the hammer driving in behind the ball carrier, that in my view is ridiculous

I really don't understand this at all

You blame the person behind for driving their player forward????

So if someone runs a liitle faster than expected it is their fault as well

faf went in shoulder first with no arms and caught the head. This has nothing to do with a person behind the ball carrier ????

No, I am not blaming anyone, I am questioning the liability of the tackler. And it was not straight contact to the head, that is simply BS.

The interpretation for the last few years has been strict liability on the tackler. They have to act so as to avoid any dangerous contact that might reasonably be expected, with mitigation for factors outside their control. So a support player driving the ball carrier or the tackler forward is not mitigation because you are expected to have prepared for that, whereas a player falling into the tackle because they have been tackled by another player or they trip might be. If the tackle itself is inherently dangerous - no arms, for instance - then it starts at a YC.

by TJ Thu 15 Jul 2021, 4:56 pm

If its foul play rather than reckless IE no arms tackle mitigation is not used.

Mitigation only comes into the decision if its a mistimed tackle or accidental high tackle. If its foul play they do not consider mitigation

this was foul play so no mitigation is possible

by No 7&1/2 Thu 15 Jul 2021, 5:05 pm

For those wanting to catch up ive found the doc you need, but I'm on my phone and it won't copy. Google world rugby Head Contact Process March 2021. This confirms it doesn't have to be direct contact with the head to result in a red.

by Heuer27 Thu 15 Jul 2021, 5:39 pm

There seems to be a focus on the De Klerk incident but there were other acts of foul play that weren’t even looked at.
The incident where Williams receives a game ending head knock was never even considered. Having seen it only at full speed Etzebeth comes in high with no attempt to bend at the waist and looks to clean out Williams whilst possibly in the air . Not even a replay from SA tv which sort of smacks of sweeping it under the carpet.
With the Zammitt no try , Harris was blootered well after he passed the ball with a high no arms hit. He got up and went straight to the ref to complain and was waved away. It was a blatant yellow and possibly more but since we never saw it again who knows.
Jako Peyper and his team had a mare last night and let some dangerous play go unpunished.
I only saw(looked for) what the SA team did but I’m sure there would have been some naughties from the Lions too.

Late dangerous hits which catch he opponents unawares are the one that cause the most damage and there really is no excuse for missing them with today’s technology

by doctor_grey Thu 15 Jul 2021, 5:48 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted

Is he the bench replacement for Marcus Smith?????

by eirebilly Thu 15 Jul 2021, 5:59 pm

George Carlin wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Agree, re Sexton. He can still do it and is still a very viable option. Not a great choice in not selecting him.

Care to elaborate or is an emoji your limit of response to this? Sad really as ye are actually a poster that usually brings decent debates to the table.

by flyhalffactory Thu 15 Jul 2021, 6:01 pm

TJ wrote:He did get head on head contact - but its only the initial point of contact that counts

Is that correct TJ?

I believe that changed couple of seasons ago. It's all about "intent" now not point of contact and also takes into account mitigating factors (it's rare now to have something so blatant that MF's are not taken onto account it would have to be a punch or stamp or something like doing a "farrell" no arms)

High tackle: An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear contact to ball carriers head/neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA

Mitigating factors (must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level)

• Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height / direction to avoid ball carrier’s head
• BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls,
dives to score)
• Tackler is unsighted prior to contact
• “Reactionary” tackle, immediate release
• contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips
or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=dangerous%20tackles

by mikey_dragon Thu 15 Jul 2021, 6:15 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:The side was reported on here whilst I was reading this thread, hence the comment

The comment before yours even has a link to the new match thread. Push away those bitter tears, then you'll see it next time Very Happy

.

by flyhalffactory Thu 15 Jul 2021, 6:28 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted
Is he the bench replacement for Marcus Smith?????

Similar hair cuts.......do you think they go to the same barber?

by Old Man Thu 15 Jul 2021, 7:58 pm

• Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height / direction to avoid ball carrier’s head

Ball carriers head - That was my point today, Faf did not connect with the ball carriers head.

by TJ Thu 15 Jul 2021, 9:58 pm

Flyhalf - mitigation is only applied if its not foul play Ie an attempt at a fair tackle.

What we are talking about is foul play where there is no attempt at a fair tackle.- no mitigation is applied

In all cases its the initial point of contact

by flyhalffactory Thu 15 Jul 2021, 10:23 pm

TJ wrote:Flyhalf - mitigation is only applied if its not foul play Ie an attempt at a fair tackle.

What we are talking about is foul play where there is no attempt at a fair tackle.- no mitigation is applied

In all cases its the initial point of contact

Sorry I might not have being in at the beginning of this discussion.
So we are not talking about the Faf incident?

You are talking purely deliberate foul play as an hypothetical point?

by TightHEAD Thu 15 Jul 2021, 10:32 pm

Definitely a Red. Very Happy

by TJ Thu 15 Jul 2021, 10:50 pm

On reflection I may not be 100% correct on my interpretation but what the ref said at the time the initial contact was with the arm and it was not clear if there was head to head contact

this is the decision making tree note no mitigation for deliberate foul play Ie no arms tackle

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Faffs case it is deliberate foul play because of no attempt to wrap so mitigation cannot be considered

I still think the correct decision on the field and I bet no citing Yellow isd right because its not clear head on head - Faffs head to navidis arm is clear. Head to head contact is not clear

by doctor_grey Thu 15 Jul 2021, 10:59 pm

flyhalffactory wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted
Is he the bench replacement for Marcus Smith?????
Similar hair cuts.......do you think they go to the same barber?

Well, the hair cut is/was similar but the amount of hair is very different. Which comes to the crux of my objection to AWJ as captain. When he starts playing he looks like he is one of those old guys with the bad comb-over haircut. It's all about how you look. At least it's not a mullet.

by **RDW** Thu 15 Jul 2021, 11:01 pm

The biggest thing for me is wtf was Faff even trying to do? It was such a bizarre incident, which has probably made it difficult to work out the punishment.

by flyhalffactory Thu 15 Jul 2021, 11:12 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
flyhalffactory wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Very surprised that no one has mentioned that AJW is on the bench for Stormers. he must be fit or he going to get busted
Is he the bench replacement for Marcus Smith?????
Similar hair cuts.......do you think they go to the same barber?
Well, the hair cut is/was similar but the amount of hair is very different. Which comes to the crux of my objection to AWJ as captain. When he starts playing he looks like he is one of those old guys with the bad comb-over haircut. It's all about how you look. At least it's not a mullet.

Is it a "Welsh" thing Doc?. Do you think Marcus could sub-let AWJ some of those shiny follicles?....or perhaps a "BOGOF" offer

by No 7&1/2 Fri 16 Jul 2021, 10:21 am

Re old Man's assertion that you can't be sent off for a high hit on a non ball carrier.

As ever with a set of laws both in rugby and elsewhere it is possible to lose sight of the aims. Just to support the wider point and point out that just because Navidi wasn't holding a ball doesn't mean you can hit him in the head without sanction:

From the world rugby process.
'Context
Player welfare drives World Rugby’s decision making for zero tolerance of foul play, especially
where head contact occurs.
The focus must be on the actions of those involved, not the injury - the need for an HIA does
not necessarily mean that there has been illegal head contact.
The ‘power of choice’ for tacklers is crucial, especially as 72% of head injuries occur in the
tackle.
There needs to be an understanding that tacklers stay up to allow them to ‘adjust and react’ -
dropping quickly into the low tackle entry position - using their ‘eyes and feet’ to get their
timing right.
It is important that coaches and players continually develop safe tackling techniques in
training

Dangerous play law 9 - Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others. (My note, it states opponent rather than ball carrier)'

So you do need a holistic view on the laws as it's simply not possible to write every possible scenario in every line in the laws.

by Old Man Fri 16 Jul 2021, 10:29 am

OK, I will accept that, clarify the following then.

Ball carriers in the past have had circumstances where they “fend” of tacklers with either a hand off, the dropped shoulder, or the leading fore arm.

The most common occurance of a ball carrier being carded or penalised is the leading fore arm or dropped shoulder hitting the neck or head area of the tackler.

This is common with mostly forwards who try to run over tacklers. So lets for one moment ignore the shoulder charge by Faf into the ball carrier, lets say it was a legal attempted tackle.

will you still have red carded Faf for the head knock?

Further to the fend off scenario, we often wax lyrical over the fend off with the hand. Is it now illegal to fend a tackler off in the face and neck area?

by No 7&1/2 Fri 16 Jul 2021, 10:36 am

So just to clarify the question as I'm a bit confused over the ball carrier bit you started with; if de Klerk had attempted the tackle legally and then made head contact, would it have been a red in my eyes?

Very hard to say as potentially that changes the hole set up and positioning of players, I'll assume in the hypothetical he still goes in with the same force, height etc so that the starting point is still red. Looking at mitigation, was there a change in height: no. Was there a clear view by the tackler: yes. To be honest I don't see much if any mitigation there. If it were still his head with that force hitting Navidi then its still a red for me.

Was that the question?

by Old Man Fri 16 Jul 2021, 10:53 am

Yeah that will do thanks.

Going back to the argentina vs Wales incident and the red card there.

Personally I thought that was harsh. Tackler dropped, went into the tackle with his head slanted to his right, as the Welshman collected the ball, looked up and braced for the tackle he started moving to his left which set him in line for a head knock.

That in my view as not a red card.

There would have been enough extenuating circumstances for me to drop that to a yellow.

Was the Argentinian player banned after the incident?

by Old Man Fri 16 Jul 2021, 10:55 am

Yes, he got three weeks

by LordDowlais Fri 16 Jul 2021, 11:23 am

Gwyn Jones's view of what he watched in this game is quite articulate, although, like us, he was not impressed by our half backs.

Gwyn Jones wrote:Owen Farrell just handed the Lions 10 jersey to Dan Biggar, I was surprised someone of his experience floundered under pressure

Former Wales captain Gwyn Jones assesses where the Lions stand as the countdown begins towards the first Test with South Africa

For the first 27 minutes of the match against South Africa A, the Lions were like a boxer trapped on the ropes, being rocked by a series of blows from a more aggressive and energetic opponent.

They looked stunned and overwhelmed by the ferocity of the Springboks and in that period, they yielded an advantage that they never regained.

This was on a whole new level to anything the Lions had experienced on their tour thus far. On an intellectual level, the Lions knew what to expect, and they were not disappointed.

But what surprised me was that on a physical level, they were blown away by the intensity of a near Test match strength South African side.

Having played so little rugby since the World Cup final, the Springboks have to keep things simple, which actually suits them more than most. They revert to a gameplan that removes as much risk as possible and concentrates on its strengths.

This means being as direct as possible in attack, driving lineouts, dominate contact areas on the fringes and kick to the box a lot. They play off nine and he is vital in generating the energy and tempo in their attack.

Faf de Klerk is also able to combine that urgency with a tactical appreciation of where the weaknesses are as the phases develop.

Warren Gatland will have to come up with a plan aimed at subduing his influence on the game; the Lions must get him on the floor, tie him into rucks and make him tackle lots of runners to reduce his effectiveness.

The other aspect of the Springboks game that should not have come as a surprise to the Lions was the suffocating line speed they had to contend with. But they couldn’t.

This was good old fashioned blitzing defence, out to in, with the wingers flying up causing chaos in the Lions backline. I was surprised that someone of Owen Farrell’s experience floundered under that pressure. He recovered a little as the game went but he has handed the starting jersey to Dan Biggar after that performance.

It was also a less that convincing performance by Conor Murray as the tour captain. His form is shaky, he doesn’t pose a physical threat to the fringe defenders and his leadership lacks authority and presence when interacting with the referee.

He kicks to the box well enough but I’m struggling to see what else he is offering at the moment. Unfortunately, the other scrum-halves haven’t grasped their opportunities either, leaving Murray in the box seat.

A major plus for the Lions however was the performance of Tom Curry. He was about the only Lions player that could impose himself on the opposition. He will start the Tests at 7.

That will allow Gatland to pick a big blindside flanker. I would go the Courtney Lawes because of his ability to dominate the contact area. The Lions don’t have to worry about him not being quite as mobile as the alternatives because South Africa are not going to play that way.

There will be nothing subtle in the challenge they pose and the Lions have to pick players that can win those collisions.

That may appear tough on Hamish Watson who has played well, but for this series, size really does matter.

One of the defensive tactics that the Lions had been using prior to the South Africa A game was the re-emergence of the chop tackle. The Lions looked like there was one tackler going very low while another would go higher when stopping forwards at the gain line.

It looks like a good idea too because the Springbok forwards hardly try to offload. Even with their superiority in the collisions on Wednesday evening, the Springboks managed one offload. This gives license for the Lions to tackle low and not worry too much about them getting hands free to extend the phase.

One of the most interesting aspects is how will Warren Gatland set his team up for the Tests. The Lions were at their most effective during the third quarter of this week’s game, when they played with width and fluency. This started when they were facing 13 men but it continued for a while after that.

One might think that the Lions would like to incorporate that openness where possible and move the ball away from the Springboks' power. But if you read between the lines of his post-match interview, Gatland made two observations that reveal his plans.

He said that the Tests were going to be an arm-wrestle and that he felt the Lions finished the stronger in this game. Translated - “get ready for a slug-fest, and our superior fitness will secure the wins.”

In response, expect South Africa to have six forwards on the bench as they did in the World Cup, and in doing so, they will be able to maintain that relentless physicality for the whole match.

Gatland must have a good idea of who his starting line-up will be, I suspect he has known the majority of that side for months but injuries and current form will have coloured his thinking in a few positions that were left open.

Alun Wyn Jones’ recovery from a dislocated shoulder is difficult to comprehend and is further evidence of what a remarkable man he is, but I think including him in the first Test is too much of a risk for me.

For what it’s worth, and I’m sure I will change my mind before the game, my starting Lions team is as follows: 15. Liam Williams, 14. Anthony Watson, 13. Elliot Daily, 12. Robbie Henshaw, 11. Josh Adams; 10. Dan Biggar, 9. Connor Murray; 1. Wyn Jones, 2. Ken Owens, 3. Tadhg Furlong, 4. Maro Itoje, 5. Iain Henderson, 6. Courtney Lawes, 7. Tom Curry, 8. Taulupe Faletau.

[/quote]

by Heaf Fri 16 Jul 2021, 11:51 am

TJ wrote:On reflection I may not be 100% correct on my interpretation but what the ref said at the time the initial contact was with the arm and it was not clear if there was head to head contact

this is the decision making tree note no mitigation for deliberate foul play Ie no arms tackle

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Faffs case it is deliberate foul play because of no attempt to wrap so mitigation cannot be considered

I still think the correct decision on the field and I bet no citing Yellow isd right because its not clear head on head - Faffs head to navidis arm is clear. Head to head contact is not clear

Are you talking about the initial contact TJ as there was clear head to head after that, albeit that Faf seemed to come off worst ...

South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July - Page 9 Faf-ta12

South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July - Page 9 Faf-ta11

South Africa 'A' v British & Irish Lions, 14 July - Page 9 Faf-ta10

by TJ Fri 16 Jul 2021, 12:02 pm

Heaf -intitial contact is crucial but its also what the ref said - that he could not see clear head on head contact

its one of those that could have been either yellow or red. there is always gray areas and interpretation but I think yellow was right and I doubt any citing. If no citing them yellow was right

by flyhalffactory Fri 16 Jul 2021, 12:13 pm

Guys the recent changes indicate first and foremost it's about intent, point of contact is vital but it's not overiding. You could make initial contact on the lower chest and still end up almost taking someone's teeth out. Like everything it's all about looking at it from all angles and interpretating whether it was premeditated, deliberate and with intent or was it just reckless

There is no way the Faf incident was a red, it had so many things going on, definitely a yellow though. But you are correct there is so much inconsistency

by Heaf Fri 16 Jul 2021, 12:16 pm

Yep I heard Peyper say no clear head on head at the time and I wondered what the hell he was looking at as it looked clear as day to me in real time even - let alone on the replays. But I've always thought he was a poor ref. I've added a few pics to my previous post to show.

I reckon if that had happened in a prem match it would have been red based on current practice as I've seen reds given when tacklers were just unfortunate and head on heads have happened rather than being reckless. Having said that I've seen worse not given so it is a bit of an inconsistent lottery.

I think you're probably right there will be no citing however as I suspect they won't want to appear to be criticising the officials who looked at it on the day and I believe most citings come after the officials have missed something rather than upgrading something already looked at?

by flyhalffactory Fri 16 Jul 2021, 12:20 pm

Heaf wrote:
TJ wrote:On reflection I may not be 100% correct on my interpretation but what the ref said at the time the initial contact was with the arm and it was not clear if there was head to head contact

this is the decision making tree note no mitigation for deliberate foul play Ie no arms tackle

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Faffs case it is deliberate foul play because of no attempt to wrap so mitigation cannot be considered

I still think the correct decision on the field and I bet no citing Yellow isd right because its not clear head on head - Faffs head to navidis arm is clear. Head to head contact is not clear

Are you talking about the initial contact TJ as there was clear head to head after that, albeit that Faf seemed to come off worst ...

Afternoon to you
I'm not the biggest fan of still shots, these in particular don't tell the whole story, it did see a slowed down video of it but can't find it now

by Sponsored content