Force v Sharks Round 7

[WFDom]

I don't think Foley likes his coaches too attack minded. Look how long Meegan lasted.

[James]

I don't think you can blame Foley for that completely. Meehan has proved in his time with Queensland that he is not a good coach.

[Herbasimplex]

I would describe Foley as very stats orientated and a conservative coach. The game plan is to play the territory game. Sharks kicked worse than us.

Don't know what else to say that hasn't been said. The execution needs to be better.

[shasta]

why not change it to something that plays to the players' strengths instead?

The kicker is that I think he's doing just that. Or perhaps allowing for their shortcomings. They have not been all far off that in the last two games. Let's hope they can bring that form back for the run of home games and execute better. They were nowhere close in the first two.

[valzc]

Seem to remember that Foley was quizzed by someone at last year's TWFERS Award about the kicking and it was promised that the players weren't really encouraged to play the kicking game. So either players are still not following instructions or we've been getting told porkies. Intelligent kicking has its place like Dane's was very good, but the rest............? Defo need to invest in a good kicking coach! Is Jake available?

[DazloT]

L

Seems strange to keep pressing on with a game plan that relies on strengths that the players don't seem to have. It's clear that a well executed kicking game isn't happening for us so why not change it to something that plays to the players' strengths instead? Or is that too simplistic?

I've thought the same at times this year. But then I realised if we did it would be the defence orientated game like last year. Nothing wrong with that but I'm enjoying seeing us attempt to and score tries. I'm now treating this year as a practice run for a more attacking game, hence all the execution problems, and next year it should all be together just like it did last year for our defense.

[.X.]

It wasn't Junkers who was the problem, briant was actively searching for reasons not to award the try, he first wanted a knock on to be found, when that wasn't there he asked about the player being on their feet, sure enough, he was, so he pounced on the word inconclusive to deny the try that he said he was going to award, but he just wanted to check a few things.

The ball finished grounded by Ben a foot inside the in-goal, there was only two movements, anybody else with eyes would have awarded it.

Scrum is the usual briant crap fest, thank god he picked up DuPlessis for binding on the arm, now he just needs to look at his angle and stop blaming Pek for it.

What was then amazing was the second disallowed try. First up the try was awarded. Arm went up - Whistle was blown. And then the Sharks number 10 (I think) went off at the referee and wouldn't stop and I thought - here we go this guy is going to get a yellow card. For Dissent. But no - all of a sudden we are looking at the Video Referee to make a decision.

I have a simple question. Since when is appealing to the Referee for a review not a penalty offence?

You all know me - I hate criticizing players and Referees. But the Referee Early Sunday morning screwed us. He screwed us good. He didn't even give us the courtesy of a reach around.

[Nipper]

Not wanting to single out a player, but after frustrating week after frustrating week, I really can't see why Sias is allowed to start in a game. I would say his endless kicking contributed to 80% of that loss, and why Foley waited so long before pulling him is dumbfounding! Even Alby is taking so long to distribute the ball, the other team has time for a lunch break by the time he's picked it up, must be getting too fatigued, Prior's service has been so much better when he's on. And Cummins was doing the invisible man again along with missed tackles.

Totally agree on both accounts. Sias is in the game for his kicking - that's all he really brings to the table. And he's not doing that well, so he needs to go. Holmes is a better attacking 10, but really can't do worse in the kicking dept.

And I'm pretty disappointed in the Badger's performance (although on the stats sheet, he was one of the top in meters gained). Missed a few tackles (made 3, missed 2) perhaps needs a bit of a rest.

They did look pretty good on attack, and got over the gain line quite often, getting some good go-forward ball... only to ruin their attacks with handling errors, penalties, or kicking the ball away.

Disappointing, which is a word I find myself using quite often these days.

[Nipper]

To be fair I think the TMO pushed him into disallowing that first try..he was dumbfounded and silent when the TMP said I cannot see conclusive grounding.
And he had awarded the second try when the screaming disrespectful Sharks players and AR talked him into going upstairs.

I agree. I actually didn't think that Briant was all that bad. You can see that he was somewhat stunned and at a loss when the TMO said it was inconclusive. It was like he was prepared to give it and wanted to get confirmation from the TMO. Now, the TMO, on the other hand was useless (and spineless). How he could say that it was "inconclusive" is beyond ridiculous. I think it was more inexperience on Briant's part. Had he used the term "is there any reason I can/can't award the try" it would've been a different story.

On the Mafi "try", it was the AR who made him go upstairs - he was going to award it despite the Sharks bitching and crying.

On the scrums, Briant looked to be trying to get the players to sort it out so it didn't become a lottery every scrum. I'd rather see that than spinning the random wheel of scrum penalties. In fact, he penalized the Sharks when they took a tighthead. Correct call, but harsh. I believe he told Jannie "I can't reward you when you're binding incorrectly."

I'm certainly no fan of Briant, but I think Force fans are being a bit harsh on him - probably a bit of bile left over from last week. Briant didn't miss any tackles, didn't miss any penalties right in front of the posts or kick the ball away incessantly.

[Nipper]

What was then amazing was the second disallowed try. First up the try was awarded. Arm went up - Whistle was blown. And then the Sharks number 10 (I think) went off at the referee and wouldn't stop and I thought - here we go this guy is going to get a yellow card. For Dissent. But no - all of a sudden we are looking at the Video Referee to make a decision.

I have a simple question. Since when is appealing to the Referee for a review not a penalty offence?

You all know me - I hate criticizing players and Referees. But the Referee Early Sunday morning screwed us. He screwed us good. He didn't even give us the courtesy of a reach around.

It was the AR who asked him to go to the TMO, not the crying Sharks. The ref didn't screw us. The TMO certainly did, but not the ref.

[travelling_gerry]

A good report from the Australians Wayne SMITH

Western Force still Super Rugby’s underachieving overachievers
NEWS LIMITED MARCH 30, 2015 12:00AM
Print
Save for later
1
Wayne Smith

Senior Sports Writer
It’s difficult to know how to categorise the Western Force but “underachieving overachievers” would not be too far off the mark. To explain: the Force have a pretty modest playing roster, which goes a long way to explaining why they have one win from seven matches this season. There are in their match-day 23 about eight or nine players who would struggle to get a run with any other Super Rugby franchise.

Not wanting to name names but Luke Burton is a worry. His official weight is listed at 90kg but it may be that the person who checked the scales is the same person who counts spectators at Queensland Reds matches at Suncorp Stadium. Burton just looks awfully light and it has become almost a reflex to wince every time he carries the ball into contact against the huge South Africans. But, astonishingly, he not only survives but more often than not he gets over the ad-line. In short, he has become almost a metaphor for the Force in general.

It seemed in the early exchanges against the Sharks in Durban yesterday (Australian time) that the Force were playing out of their league. Their first scrum feed resulted in a humiliating tighthead, as the Sharks barrelled them off the ball. Yet that would be the last time the set piece would be humiliated. And even when defenders were sent reeling by the heavyweight Sharks forwards, they’d instantly rebound and redouble their efforts to complete the tackle.

Somehow they wrested the incentive entirely away from the home team, so much so that by half-time the Sharks had made 71 tackles to the Force’s 33. But it was classic good little men against good big men stuff. In 42 ball carries, the Sharks gained 229m, 9m more than the Force did in 65.

The Force were going nowhere fast. But the operative word is “fast”. If a small team keeps doing things at pace, the gaps finally appear and it’s at this point the Force sheds its honourable overachieving status and morphs instead into the bunch of losers who can’t finish off what they have started.

The second half at King Park was littered with the scrunched-up chances the Force discarded. In the 49th minute Dane Aylett-Petty won an attacking lineout with a neat grubber that forced Sharks centre Andre Esterhuizen to hack the ball into touch next to his own corner-post. Then the Force lost the lineout.

Six minutes later and the Force were back there again, 5m from the line, when Wilhelm Steenkamp blundered ahead of the play and were penalised for obstruction just as the Perth team looked certain to score. In the 65th minute, with the Force trailing 8-6, Sias Eberoshn missed a penalty goal attempt from straight in front of the posts. Next minute, literally, the Sharks winger Lwazi Mvovo was scoring at the other end of the ground.

Back the Force came again, with flanker Steve Mafi seemingly rewarded for his outstanding game with a pick and dive try. Kiwi referee Nick Briant initially signalled the try but then reconsidered — and we’ll come back to Mr Briant in a moment — and replays revealed No 8 Ben McCalman illegally had created a hole for Mafi by taking out a defender from the side. One more phase and they surely would legitimately have scored. And yet still the Force kept coming. Centre Kyle Godwin had only to catch a simple pass right at the death to score a try but, with no defender in sight, knocked it on.

These would be unforgivable mistakes were it not for the irrepressible enthusiasm of this Force side. There are no brilliant players in the side, no wizards capable of conjuring up something out of nothing. Every metre gained has to be earned, every linebreak made has to be constructed. Nothing happens easily.

It’s hard, then, not to admire this plucky bunch of losers. Everyone’s playing for everyone else. There are no superstars, no egos, no whingers, either. The latter is important because a fair-minded observer would suggest the Force have some legitimate complaints to whinge about — starting with the fact that five of their first seven matches have been on the road, two of them with only six-day turnarounds.

And then, as if they’re not doing it tough enough already, they get decisions like this one yesterday after McCalman had picked up from a ruck and driven low to the tryline for what should have been the psychologically crucial first try of the match.

Briant, on the spot, could have awarded it immediately but instead fussily referred it to the TMO, South African Marius Jonker.

Here’s what followed: Briant: “I just want to check that. I was going to give that. I just want to see if he’s grounded the ball without knocking-on. Can you tell me if a try has been scored, please.”

Jonker (after checking countless replays and somehow missing what everyone else, including the South African commentators saw — namely McCalman clearly forcing the ball on the line): “Mate, there was no knock-on. It’s not clear from the evidence whether the ball was on the line so if you saw the ball on the line, you should go with your call but there’s certainly no knock-on.” (In short, Jonker is giving Briant the go-ahead to back his judgment and award the try. But the New Zealander only looks perplexed and mysteriously widens the terms of reference.)

Briant: “Are you comfortable with … it’s difficult for me to tell down here … that he’s actually on his feet when he picked the ball up or do you think he was playing the ball in the ruck?”

Jonker: “Yeah, I’m comfortable with that, mate.” (Again he’s telling the referee to award the try, but not in so many words. So now Briant backtracks on himself.)

Briant: “But it’s inconclusive if it even got to the line?”

Jonker: “Correct”

Briant: “So we can’t have a try.”

Why, one wonders, is it always the battlers on the receiving end of such decisions?

[blueandblack]

and Nick Briant not seeing a non-straight lineout throw, even though he was directly in line with where the throw should have gone.

[SinBin]

..... it may be that the person who checked the scales is the same person who counts spectators at Queensland Reds matches at Suncorp Stadium. ..

That was gold!

You're right, the whole article was a great summary of our plight and objective journalism.

[Alison]

Fantastic piece.

[Tonkar]

Briant I should GO TO Spec Savers